Back in August, I wrote the following about girl-group performances for the Korean military:

With 300-350,000 new conscripts annually, one of the longest conscription periods in the world, and a grisly — but improving — record of bullying and abysmal living conditions, keeping the troops entertained can safely be assumed to have long been a big concern of the South Korean military. Accordingly, televised visits by girl-groups and entertainers have become a recognizable part of Korean popular culture, although note that it was originally US solidiers that they would perform for, as explained in the highly recommended read Koreans Performing for Foreign Troops: The Occidentalism of the C.P.C. and K.P.K. by Roald Maliangkay.

Given that context, then it’s natural that girl-groups — and boy-bands — would also come to regularly perform for schools too, albeit more obviously as a means of self-promotion than as a patriotic service. However, as a performance the next month by dance group Waveya (웨이브야) demonstrated, and today’s commentary on it at BuzzFeed highlights, perhaps they don’t always tone down their choreography for their teenage audiences.

Here’s a just taste of what middle and high-school students (aged 13-18) at the September 2012 Gonggam (Sympathy) Concert witnessed, hosted by the Gangwon Provincial Office of Education:

Naturally, I don’t have anything against Waveya themselves, and of course sexualized performances are just fine with adult audiences. Also, what boy-band or girl-group hasn’t overstepped the line on occasion, whether by accident or as a deliberate promotion tool?

Nevertheless, this particular performance seems not so much an imitation of some of the more risqué K-pop songs, as a deliberate mash-up of their most provocative choreography. Add that Waveya are a self-styled “sexy dance group,” and include pictures of themselves in skimpy schoolgirl outfits on their homepage, then it’s strange — and very telling — that they so regularly get invited to perform for children:

Should there be restrictions on school performances? Whatever the girl-group or boy-band?

One argument against that is that teenagers can readily — and do — see music videos’ original sexualized choreography on their smartphones (let alone pornography), in which case toning things down would be both naive and pointless. And perhaps there’s some merit to that.

On the other hand, we are talking about adult women spreading their legs just 3 meters in front of teenage boys’ faces, a much more visceral experience than images or video can provide (sure enough, there were some complaints about the September performance). Also, regardless of whether you feel Waveya are being sexually objectified or not, or if that’s even a negative, if performances like this prove to be routine at Korean schools then they’d surely be a powerful socialization agent. Especially for what’s been described as the saturation of costumed, frequently scantily-clad female ‘narrator models‘ and ‘doumi‘ in daily life here.

That’s no exaggeration. But it’s also something very difficult to appreciate until you’ve seen it for yourself. To remedy both, please go directly to the source, a 2005 piece from Scribblings of the Metropolitician (my emphasis):

….Some parts of this topic have been covered in previous posts about the social status of women the commodification of their bodies, but I just wanted to point out a few things here visually. When I talk about the 도우미 (doumi – “assistants” who can be found in everything from grocery stores to ones singing rooms), people often ask me why they bother me so much. To reiterate a point I made in a previous post, it’s the saturation of the doumi into the realm of the everyday and mundane that is so insulting – to both the customers and the workers themselves (source, above).

Of course, I am making a value judgement and perhaps seem like I am engaging in a condescending discourse about these women. But I am not irritated because I “feel sorry” for them or I am fighting for some notion of their human rights; I simply think that the simple equation of baring flesh for the sake of selling toothpaste and razor blades just cheapens the whole enterprise for everyone. When I say this, I acknowledge that “sex sells” and that hot models are the standard eye candy of choice for trade, car, and electronics shows the world over. Still, hiring a model who is a larger-than-life figure showcasing a larger-than-life product or prototype somehow seems appropriate, whereas watching dozens of women who look like my cousin or niece hawking the most everyday and mundane of objects just seems ineffective and demeaning….

(Source)

What do you think? About anything mentioned in today’s post?

But whatever your opinion, please note that the boys in the audience don’t deserve the mockery they’ve been receiving on BuzzFeed and YouTube (remember: we were all teenagers once!), so please don’t repeat it. Also, because it is just a handful of performances by a dance group being discussed here, we should be wary of overgeneralizing to more mainstream music groups based only on their example. So, I’d really appreciate it if readers — especially public school teachers — could confirm how common or exceptional such full-on performances really are.

Update: Based on all your comments, both below (thanks!) and in the wider blogosphere, such sexualized performances are actually quite common in Korean schools (although Waveya’s is still more explicit than most). Here’s some representative commentary, by Party in the R.O.K:

…in every school I’ve worked at, sexy dance moves are totally acceptable in the school environment. Teachers have let the kids watch music videos before or after class that have made me blush, but no one else seems affected by the raunchiness. Also, when I taught at middle school, they would have joint assemblies with the high school girls and often do dance performances. My middle school girls would wear high heels and short skirts (nothing out of normal but still a little risque for school) but one time the high school girls did an After School-inspired dance that involved wearing almost invisible short shorts and high heels and straddling flags and getting low and practically twerking onstage… in front of an audience of parents and siblings and other teachers… while lots of male parents and teachers took videos with their phones… no one acted like it was weird at all. I felt like I was breaking a law just watching it! That is one thing about teaching in Korea that I will never be used to.

See my Reading the Lolita Effect in Korea series below also (especially Part 2), which discusses those issues in greater depth:

• Syndrome (신드롬) by ChoColat (쇼콜라): Lyrics, Translation, and Explanation / Reading The Lolita Effect in Korea, Part 5
• Reading The Lolita Effect in Korea, Part 4: A Wave of Middle School Girls Wearing Make-up…Is it all Girl Groups’ Fault?
• Reading the Lolita Effect in Korea, Part 3: Six Year-Old Does KARA’s “Butt Dance” (엉덩이 춤) on “Shabekuri 007″
• Reading the Lolita Effect in Korea, Part 2: The role of K-pop and the Korean media in sexual socialization and the formation of body image
• Reading “The Lolita Effect” in South Korea: Part 1
• Should the Sexualization of Teens in K-Pop be Banned?

(For more posts in the Korean Sociological Image series, see here)

(Sources, edited: text, image)

Give it to me, SISTAR.

Slip up just once while you’re promoting your new album, and give me your honest opinion of your costumes, your choreography, or your lyrics. Tell me what input you had in them. Tell me if you ever rejected those that Starship Entertainment provided for you.

Or did you waive that right when you signed your contracts?

Because several things are going to happen in the next few weeks: some people are going to slut-shame you for the lewdness of your performances, and some people are going to raise concerns about your sexual objectification. Some people might even do both.

And in all of those cases, the issue of your consent will be the elephant in the room.

First, because it’s both misogynistic and asinine to slut-shame you if you’re actually projecting a creation of your management company, rather than expressing your own sexuality and personality. Second, because as discussed back in April, there is both negative and positive (or benign) objectification, and the presence or absence of the consent of the person(s) involved is crucial for determining which is which (source, right):

According to Martha Nussbaum (1995; opens PDF) then: ‘In the matter of objectification context is everything. … in many if not all cases, the difference between an objectionable and a benign use of objectification will be made by the overall context of the human relationship (p. 271); ‘… objectification has features that may be either good or bad, depending upon the overall context’ (p. 251). Objectification is negative, when it takes place in a context where equality, respect and consent are absent.

(Evangelia Papadaki,”Feminist Perspectives on Objectification“)

On positive objectification, “dissident feminist” Camille Paglia is very much on point (my emphases in bold):

Early on, I was in love with beauty. I don’t feel less because I’m in the presence of a beautiful person. I don’t go [imitates crying and dabbing tears], “Oh, I’ll never be that beautiful!” What a ridiculous attitude to take!–the Naomi Wolf attitude. When men look at sports, when they look at football, they don’t go [crying], “Oh, I’ll never be that fast, I’ll never be that strong!” When people look at Michelangelo’s David, do they commit suicide? No. See what I mean? When you see a strong person, a fast person, you go, “Wow! That is fabulous.” When you see a beautiful person: “How beautiful.” That’s what I’m bringing back to feminism. You go, “What a beautiful person, what a beautiful man, what a beautiful woman, what beautiful hair, what beautiful boobs!” Okay, now I’ll be charged with sexual harassment, probably. I won’t even be able to get out of the room!

We should not have to apologize for reveling in beauty. It is not a trick invented by nasty men in a room someplace on Madison Avenue….It is so provincial, feminism’s problem with beauty. We have got to get over this.

(Sex, Art, and American Culture: Essays by Camille Paglia {1992}, pp.264-5; source, above)

Granted, Paglia is unfairly homogenizing and stereotyping feminism, as my own favorite feminist scholar explains:

Few issues have caused more debate within feminism’s history than the sexualized representation of women….Feminist activists and scholars have long tangled with the issue of whether images liberate women from or enforce traditional patriarchal notions of female sexuality. From Laura Mulvey’s psychoanalytical constructions of the “masculine gaze” to Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon’s longstanding appeals to broaden both cultural and legal definitions of pornography, there is a wide and influential range of contemporary feminist discourse on the ways in which women are manipulated and victimized through various cultural representations. These have led to a popular stereotype of the “feminist view” (if there ever were such a monolith) of the sexualized woman as a consistently negative one. However, the history and evolution of the women’s movement problematizes this stereotype, as women have actively demanded the right to act as free and discerning sexual subjects even as they may be interpreted or serve as another’s object of desire.

(Pin-up Grrrls: Feminism, Sexuality, Popular Culture, Maria Buszek {2006}, p. 5)

Yet be that as it may, in my experience there are precious few commentators on K-pop that heed Paglia’s imperative, let alone make any consent-based distinctions between negative and positive objectification. I’m especially frustrated with Korean commentators who, caveats about my article-searching skills aside, tend to view increasing sexual objectification — and/or sexualization — as a blanket evil, SISTAR usually only getting a mention as an example of this pernicious trend. Certainly, I’ve yet to find someone who bothered to find out if equality, respect and consent are indeed absent in your relationship with Starship Entertainment.

Then I remembered that if you want something done properly, you have to do it yourself.

(Source)

So, I became your biggest fanboy, spending the last two weeks poring over all your interviews and TV appearances. Whereas I used to think that they were just mindless trash, and that you weren’t free to speak openly, I finally — belatedly — realized I could no longer simply assume either.

But ten-plus hours of videos, and numerous reading later? No offense SISTAR, but now I know they’re mindless trash.

I’ve learned, for instance, that: Bora has a mole on her left ear (32:37); Hyorin met her first love when she was in her second year of high school (7:10); all of them just love Las Vagas (7:00); there is an unofficial rule that band members can secretly start going out on dates once they approach 1000 days since their debut, but as of 973 days neither Hyorin nor Bora had (15:20); Hyorin has a pet snake; Soyou prepared for Christmas, 2011 by listening to a lot of carols (1:55); Dasom‘s mother is a big fan of the host of YHY’s Sketchbook (4:35); and so mindlessly on and on…

I would have watched more, but stopped paying much attention after watching one show that had you all spitting gum at a target for five minutes, and quit altogether after seeing the one above that opened with a pig shitting — which seemed a fitting metaphor for the quality of many of those programs. But most of all, I was giving up out of frustration at how many interviewers and TV show hosts would waste their precious time with you by almost always asking the same sort of inane questions, with the same predictable awww-we-love-you-[insert city/country/name of show]-guyz type answers (source, right).

True: I am highlighting the most inane, the most vacuous, the most trivial parts of them. This may be patronizing and unfair: after all, some people are interested in such things, I’d probably be more interested myself if they were about Lee Hyori, and providing them is an integral part of creating and sustaining a fanbase. Also, the Sketchbook one is interesting in another way — albeit a negative one — for the disproportionate attention given to the handful of samchon (uncle) fans in the audience (5:50; that will have to be another post!). And I did learn via Soompi that perhaps you’re forced to wear short skirts:

SISTAR’s Soyu recently revealed her dislike of short stage outfits.

On the June 1 episode of “Beatle’s Code: Season 2,” Soyu honestly talked about the late controversies behind the group’s outfits.

Soyu stated, “It is a little upsetting, it might be a good thing in a way. Even if we wear the same hot pants as other girl group members, when we wear them people call it racy. We think it’s because we have a healthy image so we try to think of it in a good way.”

When asked if she liked wearing short skirts/dresses, Soyu answered, “I really hate wearing short skirts/dresses. Sometimes there are rude people who take photos from below us. There are even people who touch us with their hands.”

I’d add that sometimes PR people or press conference organizers will take advantage of this, only providing high stools for female celebrities to sit on (source, above-right). But Soyu, did you mean you would wear something different given the choice? Or that you just don’t like the perving? Why, oh why, didn’t the interviewer just ask?

And that was the best I got for 10 hours work. (Readers will surely understand why I’ll refrain from the addressing the post to SISTAR from this point!) But in hindsight, perhaps it was naive of me to expect anything more than frequently tantalizing — but always unsatisfying — hints, for several reasons.

First, because I’ve already discussed the problem of Korean sources in my ongoing Who are the Korean Pin-up Grrrls? series. As always, I welcome readers’ suggestions for critical Korean commentary on K-pop; of course do know of, have read, and have translated some here; and acknowledge that my inability to find as much as I’d like doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s not more of it out there.

But frankly? As someone whose idea of a good time is to Google “성 상품화” after a couple of Black Russians, that caveat is sounding increasingly hollow and unnecessary.

Second, because for all the associations with the Korean idol and Japanese jumisho systems, as I’ll discuss in a moment, things are little different for Western performers:

Women have always felt the pressure to look decorative or pleasing, but within pop and rock, when the star is the focus of a mass gaze, this expectation is increased tenfold. In the face of the pop orthodoxy that a woman is there first and foremost to look attractive, female artists have consistently had to negotiate the Image issue. “There’s always what we call the Cleavage Question,” said singer Suzanne Vega. “How much to show, when to show it, if at all.”

While Cleavage was the main sexual barometer of the 80s, when pop was in its infancy, with 20s vaudeville blueswomen and 40s jazz swingers, focus was on the Leg. With 50s dream babes the emphasis may have been on the Derriere, as opposed to the fetishizing of the Hair in the 60s. Whatever the focus, the acceptability of women in pop has rested on their ability to read and wear the codes, to promote whatever body part is fashionable at the time.

(She-Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Popular Music by Lucy O’Brien, 2012; pp.168-169)

(Source)

Kate Bush provides an illustrative example:

An early shot from Kate Bush’s 1978 publicity campaign has her looking full-lipped and big-eyed, wearing a clinging vest, her nipples showing through. When asked about her image at the time, Bush insisted that she didn’t feel exploited. “I suppose the poster is reasonably sexy just ’cause you can see my tits,” she continued matter-of-factly. “But I think the vibe from the face is there….Often you get pictures of females showing their legs with a very plastic face. I think that poster projects a mood….I’m going to have trouble because people tend to put the sexuality first. I hope they don’t. I want to be recognized as an artist.”

Some years later, at the time of her third or fourth album, the penny dropped. “I was very naive and I was very young,” she said of the early photo sessions which led to her being one of the most popular ‘wank’ images to grace student bedrooms. “It was all very new to me and, in the first year, I learned so many lessons about how people wanted to manipulate me.”

(p.171; see 3rd paragraph down *here* also)

(Update: I really wanted to mention — but felt that the post already had more than enough quotes –  “Selling an image: girl groups of the 1960s“  by Cynthia J. Cyrus in Popular Music, May 2003, as the similarities between Korean girl-groups of today and US and UK girl-groups of the 1960s are simply astounding. Please email me if you’d like a copy, or of any of the other journal articles mentioned here.)

Third, because it’s by no means only Korean reporters and TV hosts that are restricted in what they can ask Korean stars. As John Seabrook revealed in “Factory Girls: Cultural technology and the making of K-pop” in last October’s New Yorker, for instance:

Half an hour before the Anaheim show, I was backstage, on my way to meet Tiffany and Jessica, the two members of Girls’ Generation born and brought up in the U.S., who are both in their early twenties. An S.M. man was guiding me through the labyrinth of dressing rooms, where various idols, mainly guys, were having their hair fussed over and their outfits adjusted. There was a lot of nervous bowing. My minder hustled me along, telling me what questions not to ask the Girls. “Was it sad to say goodbye to your friends who didn’t make it?” he said. “Do you have a boyfriend?” He paused. “This is all going to Korea, and it’s a little different there,” he said. “So if we could stay away from the personal questions like boyfriends.”

(Update: Gag Halfrunt provides a second example in the comments)

(Source)

Finally, because I watched Nine Muses of Star Empire (2012), an 82 minute documentary about Nine Muses’ life and training under management company Star Empire Entertainment, directed by Lee Hark-joon.

Or rather, I watched the 47 minute version that played on BBC World in mid-February (available here; it doesn’t embed well sorry), which by all accounts turned it into much more of a “journalistic exposé” than was originally intended, and certainly — deservedly — portrays Star Empire Entertainment in a very negative light. While SISTAR’s Starship Entertainment is of course a completely different company, I still probably wouldn’t even have bothered with their interviews if I’d first seen Nine Muses’ PR Manager (3:15) schooling them in exactly what to say at theirs, or their CEO (10:15) personally choosing — how empowering! — outfits that showed off their honey thighs:

That said, I do encourage readers to check out two interviews of the director, particularly in the latter link where he says:

Q) In the documentary the managers can be seen deciding on the girls’ outfits, songs and choreography. Do the girls have any say in their group’s concept, or is everything decided on for them?

A) The girls’ and boys’ band concept is decided by the agency. However, not all successful bands are like that. As they adjust to the music industry, they start composing their own songs and have more of a voice in their concept. In the documentary, the girls are told by managers: “If you become a star, your opinion is law. If you think you are treated unfairly, become a star.” What the manger said is cruel but it shows a reality.

(Source)

Next, I insist readers check out at least Part One of — and especially the much longer comments to — W. David Marx’s series at néojapanisme on the Japanese jumisho system that the Korean idol system is based on, and which it’s clearly still very similar to. (The introductory chapter to Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture {2012} is also helpful, as is Googling “idol” and “Seoulbeats“; here’s a good starting post). Assuming that you have, then it’s an opportune moment to stop and take stock here:

• It’s difficult to find material on SISTAR specifically
• There is great variation in different management companies’ relationships with their employees/groups/artists. Star Empire Entertainment, T-ara’s Core Contents Media, and KARA’s DSP Media would be at one end of the scale, and probably 2NE1′s YG Entertainment and The Brown Eyed Girls’ Nega Network at the other.
• These relationships — i.e., level of groups’ freedom, autonomy, and involvement in their work — change over time, as indicated by director Lee Hark-joon above. To wit, SM Entertainment has reportedly improved in recent years, and just this week JYP announced that he no would no longer insist on having his name mentioned at the beginning of songs, and would allow his artists more freedom with composer choices
• Not being able to ask artists tough questions doesn’t preclude us from making informed guesses about their relationships with their management companies. Moreover, unfiltered news and confessions does appear all the time, After School’s UEE admitting just last week that their CEO effectively forced them to do (painful) pole dances in their latest MV for example, and CL on the right (source; edited) mentioning back in March that she refused her company’s requests for her to get cosmetic surgery before her debut (something YG would later do a complete 180 on). Likewise, I hope SISTAR will be more  — er — revealing in the future too.

But where does all that leave the question of how to determine sexual objectification in K-pop?

Recall that in the last post, I provided some criteria on sexual objectification devised by various feminist scholars, and concluded that most purported examples in K-pop(and specifically, SISTAR’s Gone Not Around Any Longer MV and TV performances) didn’t meet those. Commenter ‘dash’ however, to whom I’m eternally grateful, pointed out that because of the levels of coercion involved in the idol system, then most likely idols did meet those criteria, even if — the main thrust of my post — sexy dancing and showing skin aren’t necessarily sexually objectifying — or rather, negatively sexually objectifying — in themselves.

To refresh readers’ memories, here are the seven specific criteria devised by Nussbaum, plus three more provided by Rae Langton:

1. instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes;
2. denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
3. inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
4. fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
5. violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
6. ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
7. denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
8. reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
9. reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
10. silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

Applying academic theories to the real world is often messy and unsatisfying, but to conclude that we just don’t know if SISTAR are coerced by Starship Entertainment, so we just don’t know if #3, #7, and #10 apply, so we just don’t know if they’re negatively sexually objectified or not? It just felt galling, as if the last two weeks had been a complete waste.

It also presented quite an impasse, which took another two weeks to overcome.

(Source)

For a while, it was tempting to leave it just at that, as you could argue that objective definitions are actually unnecessary, and/or seeking them misguided. After all, you’d think devising some for pornography would be much easier, but my (layperson’s) impression is that despite laws distinguishing between its many forms, and despite various coda used by law enforcement agencies to police, say, child porn (for example, the COPINE scale), we’re actually no closer to having objective definitions of it than when Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said in 1964 (albeit later retracted and regretted) that it was hard to define the hard-core stuff, but that he knew it when he saw it.

Perhaps, that’s because the world’s first peer-reviewed academic journal on pornography won’t even be launched until next year?

In contrast, Buszek’s quote above reminds us that academic work on objectification has a long pedigree, and is indeed the primary means — and likely will remain the primary means — by which we discuss “the ways in which women are manipulated and victimized through various cultural representations.” And who could doubt it the necessity of doing so, after watching the following video?

Not what it may seem, Escher Girls describes it as:

A video about the straight cis male gaze in cinema (and video games), examples of it, and talking about how even when men are sexualized on screen, it’s still as active agents and not as a collection of body parts where the camera zooms in and cuts to various secondary sex characteristics. Not a new concept, but the video is still interesting, even as just food for thought.

I also think having it deconstructed visually like he does, helps one pay a little more attention to how the world around us is constructed via the media we consume, in even small subtle ways, like where the camera focuses, pans, and zooms in on, and the difference between cuts that show pieces of the body versus full face & body shots.

….Also, this doesn’t mean it’s NEVER a thing to do, sometimes it can be used very effectively, and increases the understanding of a scene…but it’s when it becomes the norm of depicting women in all situations…

(Source)

So, after two weeks of banging my head against a brick wall, it finally occurred to me to Google PDF files with “sexual objectification” in the title. In just five minutes of looking, I came across the solution in the form of “Sexual Objectification of Women: Advances to Theory and Research” in The Counseling Psychologist 39(1), 2011, pp. 6-38 by Dawn Szymanski, Lauren Moffitt, and Erika Carr, as I was immediately struck by how their five core — but very interrelated — criteria of a “sexually objectifying environment” were eerily similar to life in a management company:

A) Traditional gender roles exist

The first thing that came to mind upon reading this were the traditional gender roles perpetuated by a significant number — but by no means majority — of songs and MVs by girl-groups, buttressed by the ridiculous double-standards of Korean censors. But, while that’s certainly something worth exploring, it’s more appropriate to focus on the environment in which management company employees work in.

Especially as this is a concept originally devised for places like Hooters (pp. 21-22):

Specific to the workplace, [one researcher] used the term gender role spillover to refer to the carryover of these traditional gender roles into work environments where they are irrelevant or inappropriate. This phenomenon is more likely to occur when gender role is more salient than work role and/or gender ratios are highly skewed, because under many circumstances, individuals use gender role stereotypes to guide behavior, especially in male-female interactions. In particular, gender role spillover occurs when women (more than men in similar occupational roles) are expected to project their sexuality through behavior, appearance, or dress. When gender role spillover occurs, the effects may be magnified when women hold jobs where one aspect is reminiscent of a sex object (i.e., cocktail waitress). In this position, women are likely to be targets of unwanted sexual attention but may (inaccurately) attribute the way they are treated to their job rather than to their gender. A dynamic is then set up where men are expected to take the role of sexual initiator. One potential outcome is a sexualized work environment where sexual remarks, seductive clothing, and sexual advances are tolerated and encouraged.

(Update: See here for more on Hooters in Korea {source, above})

B) A high probability of male contact exists (physically speaking, a male-dominated environment)

Here, the authors’ meaning is the greater numbers of men compared to women in the environment in question; lacking that data, this cannot be confirmed or denied in the case of Korean management companies. But we can guess — and this is confirmed by Nine Muses of Star Empire — that the female idols do have considerable contact with the same few men, and…

…the extent of contact with men [is] a key predictor of incidence of harassment, number of different types of harassment, sexual comments, sexual categorical remarks, and sexual materials for women. Thus, contact with men may serve as a mediator between women and sexual objectification (SO). Frequent contact with men may create a more sexualized environment, which in turn allows for more SO experiences. (pp. 22-23)

Next, consider the disproportionate power of those men:

C) Women typically hold less power than men in that environment

This can be taken as a given. But Seabrook puts it well, and the combination he describes is covered well in the comments to Part One of the jumisho series at neojaponismé:

When you replicate the American entertainment business, and add the Confucian virtue of rigid respect for elders to the traditionally unequal relationship between artists and suits, the consequences can be nasty.

I’d also add that although men can and do write, direct, and/or produce — for want of a better word — feminist songs and MVs, and that although those intended for heterosexual men can be willingly embraced by women (of all sexualities) nevertheless, the example of lyricist Kim Eana (and others) points to the common-sense conclusion that the more women in the industry, the more feminist and/or positively-objectifying songs and MVs will likely be produced.

(Source, right)

The final two are also self-evidently true:

D) A high degree of attention is drawn to sexual/physical attributes of women’s bodies

Environments where women are required, often by specifications of a uniform, to reveal and emphasize their bodies are clearly sexually objectifying. Additionally, wearing tight or revealing clothing may facilitate self-objectification, as women constantly review their appearance and the fit of their clothing in the surrounding mirrors. Supporting this notion, [one study] found that women in fitness centers who wore tight and fitted exercise clothing (gym tops and gym pants) placed greater emphasis on their appearance attributes and engaged in more habitual body monitoring than women who wore looser clothing (T-shirts and sweatpants). Relatedly, [other researchers] found that the attention focused on women’s bodies in fitness centers leads women to self-objectify more. (p. 23)

E) The approval and acknowledgement of male gaze

…girl watching is a “targeted tactic of power” where men use gaze to demonstrate their right to physically and sexually evaluate women. The activity serves as a form of playing a game among some men; however, the targeted woman is generally understood to be an object, rather than a player, in the game. Thus, from a male point of view, “acts such as girl watching are simply games played with objects: women’s bodies”. The effects of male gaze on women may be intensified by the accompaniment of sexually evaluative commentary. (p. 24; source, right)

And with that, I could finally conclude my month-long inquiry. Which in short, is that I now more or less agree with dash(!), the commenter that started me on it. Or in full, that:

• Given everything we know about the idol system, it is fair to assume that management companies are sexually objectifying environments
• Consequently, it fair to assume that female performers do not always consent to the sexual objectification asked of them
• Consequently, it is negative sexual objectification
• And crucially, if the management companies and/or performers feel that these assumptions are incorrect and unfair, that the onus is on them to prove us feminist whiners wrong

As many do…

(Source, above; below)

Yes, you can argue that that’s a lot of assumptions. And/or that, because the first set ivory tower criteria from the last post didn’t work in the real world, that I’ve merely gone and replaced them with another. Both criticisms are fair. Also, I acknowledge the very very broad range of topics above, and am aware of the many exceptions, over-generalizations, and just plain simple mistakes involved in covering them all. I welcome and appreciate readers pointing them out to me, and look forward to discussing them in the comments.

Yet most of all, I’m happy that I now longer feel so stymied, feel so…inadequate when talking about objectification in K-pop because I feel I won’t ever been able to hear enough about it — or indeed, anything about it — from the singers themselves.

Of course, the drudgery of religiously scanning news reports and interviews for their voices — i.e. to make assumptions into facts –  is still essential, and, having recognized that, motivated fanboying is something I definitely plan to continue doing in the future. But spending hours toiling over, say, all 114 pages of the SISTAR tag on allkrap allkpop for those slip-ups before you can feel you can even write? Really, us feminist whiners can do much better than that.

And SISTAR, so can you too. Give it to me indeed.

You know what I mean!

p.s. Like this post? Did it keep you occupied for half an hour? Please consider making a small donation, to help me write more of them — I’ve only had one two so far this year! ㅠㅠ

(Source)

…whenever claims of female empowerment or sexual expression are made of girl groups, just a little investigation reveals the conspicuous absence of the voices of the girls themselves. Rather, you find that it’s the entertainment companies speaking for them…

(Korea Herald, July 2011)

I do apologize for quoting myself. But it’s not often that K-pop makes you laugh so hard:

After Girl’s Day held their comeback showcase with the uber-sexy Female President song and choreography, some expressed concerns about the group’s change in image becoming perhaps too sexual.

Their label said,

“They got so much love from ‘Expectation’ that it’s true we were at first burdened about this new song and choreography. Since we worked so hard, the members were confident in the new song, but they’re so happy because the reaction was better than expected. We’re so thankful for the interest.”

Regarding the sexy choreography and concept, the label said, “After the suspenders dance, now it’s the nine-tailed fox dance. It’s the point choreography of the new song, so they worked on it for a long time. They’re not burdened at all by the skin exposure. They’re just happy to have a new image. They’re working hard with the determination to look even sexier when promoting ‘Female President’. As the members are working hard and passionately, please watch over them fondly.”

 (allkpop; original unsourced, but it appears to be a translation of this Newsen article)

Amusement turned to consternation though, when I read the following, harrowing account of what really happened at one of their recent promotions (my emphases; source, right):

…Girl’s Day performed right under the sun and lighting equipment for eight straight songs. By the second song, Sojin practically fainted back stage and Minah could barely stand on her own…

After their stages, the journalists asked questions and one of them asked what they would promise their fans if they won #1. The host asked the girls to do their promise early and do it by jumping into the water ㅋㅋㅋㅋ Ridiculous. The girls obviously looked distressed and Minah kept looking at the staff section, looking like she was asking her CEO what they should do. The girls were drenched in sweat and it was obvious that they just wanted to finish up and go home early but the CEO and the host forced the girls to go ahead with the promise anyway…

….I guess the problem was that once they were done greeting their fans, the girls could not walk at all… They tried to get out of the pool but it was obvious they had no strength left in their bodies. Minah was practically crawling out of the water because her legs had no strength and Sojin had to be supported by her manager… Meanwhile fans and journalists were taking pictures of this, of course [but making them appear erotic and consensual]…

(Update: Here’s a video of the event. Tellingly, the scenes where they were coerced into jumping into the water have been edited out, but their tiredness is still evident at the end of the video)

(Update 2: Billboard Korea disingenuously claims that the Girl’s Day members “surprised viewers at one point when they jumped into the pool… in their hot pink ensembles.”

Read the full article at Netizen Buzz. Technically, their lack of consent to the swimming at that promotion is unrelated to the girl on girl action, the panties fashion, or the stripping in the MV to Female President, and I don’t bemoan anyone for enjoying any of that. But personally, it’s completely overshadowed by what happened above, which just speaks volumes about the coercive relationship between Girl’s Day and their management company, Dream Tea Entertainment. Add that all the skin in the MV is gratuitous anyway, then I have no qualms about also labeling that negative sexual objectification, as defined by the criteria outlined in the previous posts in the series.

The irony though? The lyrics to the song are relatively empowering.

As Amy at YAM Magazine puts it, the title may be a misnomer, but it’s still a song…

…to empower girls to not sit around waiting for guys to give the first step, but to go for it saying “you love him,” and to go and “kiss him first”…

Commenters to a review at McRoth’s Residence disagree, including Kyungmi, who is “angered” by how “bland” they are. While her opinions necessarily carry more weight than my own, and my knowledge of K-pop is hardly exhaustive, I’m still struggling to think of more examples of girl-groups’ songs promoting such boldness in taking relationships to the next level, compared to a plethora of ones that promote passivity instead. In particular, compare Female President’s:

Come on come on oh oh oh

Come on come on oh oh oh

You go first and say you love him

Now is the time, you can start first

We have a female president

Why so serious? What’s the problem?

If a girl kisses first, she gets arrested or what?

Come up to him and kiss him first

Now is the time, you can start first

To those to Dal Shabet’s Be Ambitious (but better translated as “Look at my Legs“), also recently released, and also notorious for its “sexy concept”:

You always only hold my hand and let go,

Is that enough for you? You don’t even kiss me,

When are you gonna make a move?

We stay up all night just talking, even when you’re drunk, you just go home.

Are you really a guy? Or are you just shy?

And, later:

I really can’t wait anymore,

I can’t believe this situation,

I really can’t wait anymore,

I don’t wanna just wait anymore.

(Source, above; source below — unknown)

To which Asian Junkie aptly responds:

SO DON’T WAIT WTF

Get it yourself, goddammit. I’m not a fucking mindreader.

And about the lyrics in general:

So as I said, people are apparently touting this as a sexualized, female empowerment song or whatever. In the music video’s comments, there are those commenting about how this is about women gaining control of their sexuality and shit.

But to me, it’s the exact opposite. It’s either saying, “Men need to be more rapey and force themselves on us because we’re wearing slutty clothes” OR “It’s not socially acceptable for us to make the first move because that would be slutty, so here’s our whining about not being aggressive enough to demand dick, we’re still waiting on you.”

(Source)

Getting back to Female President, again I acknowledge the irony of empowering lyrics accompanying a song so negatively objectifying, and would be very happy to learn that there’s actually many more out there in K-pop that encourage women to be more assertive in their relationships (not just empowering in general though — I already know of many of those). Also, I fear that again it’s appropriate to quote myself, as I can never stress enough that…

…it’s not the place of this author—a slightly fat, bald, middle-aged man—to tell any young female singer or consumer what they should and shouldn’t consider empowering.

But to argue that the “saddest fact” about this song is that the lyricists Nam Gi-sang (남기상), Gang Jeon-myeong (강전명), and Daniel R. are men though?

That’s sexist.

(Update: Dana’s “‘Female President’ Has Nothing To Do With A Female President” at Seoulbeats is a must-read)

Related Posts:

• (Part 2) Consent is Sexy: SISTAR, slut-shaming, and sexual objectification in the Korean idol system
• (Part 1) SISTAR19: Begone, Calling Them “Objectified” Any Longer

(Source)

For all their passion, home-grown fans are not paying enough for K-Pop.

The CD industry is stagnant, and digital music sites are seen as vastly underpriced, with some charging just a few cents a song.

Bernie Cho, head of music distribution label DFSB Kollective, says online music sellers have dropped their prices too low in a bid to compete with pirated music sites….

….With downward pressure on music prices at home, “Many top artists make more money from one week in Japan than they do in one year in Korea.”

(BBC, June 2011)

With many implications for the Korean music industry, and raising many questions about the curious preferential treatment given Korean fans over international ones, I’ve been quoting Bernie ever since. So too Sony Pictures chief Michael Lynton and Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore on movies, the latter of whom suggested that cultural differences are the main reason that Koreans illegally download so much more of them than the Japanese:

…governments around the world are subsidizing and promoting the ubiquity of high speed broadband to make their economies more efficient and competitive. With this increase in speed, content will travel that much more easily on the Internet. But without restraints, much of that content will be contraband.

I’ve already seen it happen in South Korea, which has one of the most highly developed broadband networks in the world. But piracy has also become so highly developed there that we and virtually every other studio has recently had to curtail or close down our home entertainment businesses. It’s hard to sell a legal DVD when it can be stolen without any repercussions.

(Michael Lynton, The Telegraph, May 2009; source, below)

…Paramount is holding back the release of “Iron Man 2″ in Japan for several weeks, having little fear about the country being swamped with bootleg copies of the film.

However, when it comes to Korea, it’s a different story. “For better or worse, there are certain countries — notably like Korea — where it’s culturally acceptable to download movies online pretty much right away,” said Moore. “By the third week of a movie’s release, you’re starting to see a large part of the audience who will start consuming the film online. It’s why Korea has almost no home video business anymore.”

(Rob Moore, Los Angeles Times, May 2010; via The Marmot’s Hole)

Given Lynton and Moore’s frustrations, readers — and myself — can be forgiven for accepting that culture must have something to do with it, and that this would necessarily apply to music too. However, I’ve just finished reading Ian Condry’s brilliant Hip-Hop Japan: Rap and the Paths of Cultural Globalization (2006), a must-read for all Japanese and — yes — Korean music fans (I’ll explain in a review later this month), who adds two crucial economic and technological reasons that few outsiders to Japan would be aware of:

(Source)

Two other aspects that distinguish Japan’s music market are rental CD shops and low rates of online piracy. These characteristics further demonstrate that abstract markets do not operate separately from their concrete settings. In Japan, recorded music sale rose steadily during the postwar period, peaked in 1998, and then began a sharp decline that continued through 2004. The start of the decline coincided with the emergence of Napster in 1999, but there are reason to think that online piracy offers only a partial explanation for the decline in sales. As I discuss elsewhere, online piracy is less prevalent in Japan than in the United States. In Japan, most young people access the Internet using cell phones, which as yet tend to have neither broadband connections not substantial hard drives. In addition, ubiquitous CD rental shops make it relatively easy and inexpensive to sample new music without relying on unauthorized downloads. CD prices are high in Japan, generally between ¥2,500 and ¥3000 (US $23-27), but renting a CD is very cheap, generally around ¥300 ($3). The widening availability of CD burners contributes to this “sneaker net” for passing around music and also limits the attractiveness of online file sharing. This suggests that the lack of online piracy arises less from a national respect for copyright than from the combination of a business setting in which rental shops make it easy for consumers to sample music cheaply and a technology environment dominated by Internet-ready cell phones that make downloading over peer-to-peer networks unfeasible.

(pages 190-191; my emphasis)

Written well before smartphones had made their debut, clearly that description is a little dated. Indeed, by 2012, the Recording Industry Association of Japan estimated that only 1 in 10 music downloads were legally purchased, prompting the Japanese government to introduce harsh fines and jail times* for — uniquely — illegally downloading (rather than uploading) content, which in turn provoked an attack on government websites by Anonymous.

However, the Japanese are notorious for stubbornly sticking to outdated technology. Common-sense dictates that looking only at digital downloads would give a very skewed impression of the Japanese music market, which is still the second biggest in the world.

(Source)

For just last week, Japan Realtime reported that CD sales are booming:

“The Japanese market is very different from the rest of the world,” said Mr. Minewaki [CEO of Tower Records Japan]…

….While global sales of physical CDs have been plunging under pressure from the digital download market, Japanese CD sales bucked this trend in 2012 with a 9% rise from a year earlier, according to the Recording Industry Association of Japan. Tower Records Japan is majority-owned by Japan’s largest wireless carrier NTT DoCoMo Inc.

Mr. Minewaki said CDs continue to do well in Japan because of legal constraints that curbs rapid discounting, a lag in consumers switching from feature phones to smartphones, and the popularity of rental CD shops where consumers can rent then copy music, a cheaper alternative than buying songs or albums online.

But the compact disc business isn’t completely immune to the marching popularity of digital downloads…

Meanwhile, here in Korea, I don’t think I’ve even touched a CD in the last year. Although I do have hundreds, being 37 years old and all…

How about yourself? Are CD rental stores also still around in Japan?

*Like most articles praising the rapid rise of the Korean digital music market and the supposed success of Korean anti-piracy efforts, this article completely fails to mention how absurdly cheap Korean digital tracks are, as noted by Bernie Cho in the opening quote.

(Source)

Sorry for the lack of posts everyone. I’ve been absentmindedly researching many, not realizing that I hadn’t put pen to paper for a while. To remedy that, here’s some interesting links that add new information to previous posts of mine, but which didn’t really justify separate updates by themselves:

1. Will saving Korea’s music business end up killing it?

In an endnote to my recent “Why the Japanese Don’t Illegally Download Music. Much.” post, I wrote:

Like most articles praising the rapid rise of the Korean digital music market and the supposed success of Korean anti-piracy efforts, this article completely fails to mention how absurdly cheap Korean digital tracks are, as noted by Bernie Cho in the opening quote.

The next week, Yim Seung-hee at the Korea Joongang Daily wrote one of the most comprehensive articles on the Korean digital music market yet, noting a lot of resistance to government law changes aimed at raising prices. Here are just a few of the quick factoids to take away from it (source, right):

• Music in Korea used to cost 73 won per download before the changes. That has now risen to 110 won, which is still less than one-tenth what iTunes costs.
• Gangnam Style only earned 3.6 million won in online royalties in Korea, coming from 2.86 million downloads and 27.32 million streams, which works out to an average of about 10.7 won per download and 0.2 won per stream.
• However, in the US, Psy received the equivalent of 2.8 billion won for 2.9 million downloads.
• Meanwhile, one estimate says that the average indie musician earns just two-to-three-million won a year (about the same as most expat English teachers make per month).
• Streaming accounts for 74 percent of online music spending in Korea (probably because of Korea’s ubiquitous broadband wifi), and downloads continue to fall. In contrast, in the rest of the world downloads dominate, making up 71 percent of the online market.

(Source: unknown)

2. “Gaijin”

Leah of The Lobster Dance is featured in a (heavily-commented) Tofugu article about the usage of the word “gaijin,” which she has used in the past but now rejects. It begins:

Gaijin (外人, short for 外国人), or “foreigner” in Japanese, is a complicated word that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Some people take the word lightly; when the Tofugu team was in Japan and a roller coaster we were riding unexpectedly malfunctioned, we joked that it was because the ride wasn’t designed to hold the weight of our giant gaijin bodies.

But for some people in Japan, “gaijin” can be a hurtful and alienating word. It can mean refusal of service at businesses, a barrier to entry for housing, or even threats of harassment or violence.

I thought that I’d reach out to some bloggers living in Japan to see what their thoughts on the word “gaijin” were. I got a lot of great, varied, and nuanced responses.

See “Korean Sociological Image #46: The Language of Exclusion” for a similar discussion surrounding the Korean term waegookin, or “foreigner,” with links to many other posts on the subject in the Korean blogosphere (as of 2010).

3. Tasteless Ad or Brilliant Marketing?

Johnny Walker is capitalizing on the 40th anniversary of Bruce Lee’s death by rendering him in CQI for a Blue Label commercial:

The ad features a startlingly lifelike computer-generated rendering of the revered martial-arts star, who died four decades ago. It has sparked ire among fans, who argue that Mr. Lee was a teetotaler and abstained from drinking alcohol for most of his life.

Critics see Mr. Lee’s personal stance as incongruous with an endorsement for a brand whose blended Scotches sell for more than $200 a bottle.

Johnnie Walker has defended the ad, saying it worked closely on it with Shannon Lee, Mr. Lee’s daughter.

Ms. Lee, meanwhile, told the Journal that while her father wasn’t a drinker, he didn’t think drinking was immoral. She also thought the video would be an “innovative way to get my father’s ideas out.”

See Scene Asia for the rest, or my “Raising the Dead: The Future of Advertising?” for a much better example featuring Audrey Hepburn, and many others in the comments (readers made me realize using dead celebrities in ads was surprisingly common).

As for this example, I share The Ethical Adman’s criticisms that “there’s something really disturbing about dead celebrities being recreated to sell brands,” and that “it seems like the ultimate violation of a person’s integrity, at a time when they cannot even defend themselves.”

Most of all, I think it was incredibly hackneyed to use a teetotaler to sell alcohol, no matter how famous he was. And I just can’t believe how incredibly bad the CGI is, despite the accolades.

(Source)

4. Lee Hyori for “Dazed and Confused”: Appropriation or Appreciation?

See Audrey Magazine or Omona They Didn’t! for the details. Or, for a similar example by T-Ara last year, see “Thinking through Korean Appropriation of American Indians” at Sociological Images, which I made a big contribution to.

Would Dazed please stop using English vulgarities on their cover. Thanks. [네이버] 뉴스 : 이효리, 결혼 앞두고 인디언 걸 변신 '수수하게' me2.do/5tO6DPp4

—
The Marmot's Feed (@rjkoehler) July 22, 2013

Meanwhile, I’m going to buy a copy to see if there was any rationale to that “vulgarity,” which I find rather charming myself…

5. 9Goddesses are Hot for the Military

While writing my “Korean Sociological Image #72: Girl-group performances for the military” last summer, it proved surprisingly difficult to find actual embeddable videos of those. So, via Omona They Didn’t!, here are 3 with Nine Muses from earlier this year, who are apparently quite popular with the troops.

6. Premarital pregnancy gets trendy

My 2008 post, Why Korean Girls Don’t Say No: Contraception Commercials, Condom Use, and Double Standards in South Korea, is still my most popular and most-commented, despite being based on 2003 data, and displaying big, obvious gaps in my knowledge of Korean sexual mores. Hopefully I’ve filled most of those since, not least because one commenter pointed out that Koreans have always been quite tolerant of premarital pregnancies, so long as the couple planned to marry.

What’s more, according to the Korea Times, now they’re more common than ever. Some excerpts (source, right):

Celebrity couples such as actor Jang Dong-gun and his wife Ko So-young, and Kim Seung-woo and Kim Nam-joo, have admitted they walked down the aisle with the brides pregnant.

Actress Kim Bu-sun goes as far as to say she approves of premarital pregnancy.

“My premarital pregnancy was the best thing that ever happened to me,” Kim says. “If my daughter becomes pregnant, I will host a party in her honor.”

She believes people should embrace single mothers, whom she considers a minority in need of attention and care.

Nice to hear, considering the Ministry of Health and Welfare defined unwed mothers as “ignorant whores” as recently as 2010 (technically, it was “low levels of education [and] impulsive sexual drives”). Continuing:

But premarital pregnancy is now humdrum, even among people who are not stars.

In a survey that consultancy Duo Wed conducted between June 1 and June 14, one-third of 374 newlyweds questioned said the bride was pregnant when they married.

Of these couples, 92.1 percent said their babies were unexpected.

Read the link for the rest. Note  that this doesn’t mean Koreans are necessarily becoming more tolerant of cohabiting couples however (and who face a lack of suitable accommodation anyway), nor of pregnancies that don’t lead to marriage.

7. This Dude’s Response To Female Crotch Sweat Shame Is Perfect

See Bust for more. Fortunately, I haven’t seem any similar products advertised here yet, and perhaps that’s because there will never be a market for them, as Korean women generally don’t sweat as much as those of other races. This was discussed in my 2010 “Hot Sweaty Korean Women” post, about a rare Korean commercial that did feature a Korean woman sweating:

If that above generalization is already raising alarm bells however, let me say that frankly I share your concerns, and wouldn’t write the same post today. And on the plus side, readers soon corrected my mistakes, and the post (hopefully) remains useful for the journal study on Korean attitudes to dieting it references.

Also, for a related 2009 post on why Koreans generally don’t wear deodorant, its marketing, and the implications for Korea’s kkotminam (“pretty flower men”), which I recently updated and does still hold up today, please see “The Scent of a Man: What deodorant commercials tell us about Korean metrosexuality.”

Thoughts? On any of stories above?

I’d like to like Misogyny Drop Dead by Planningtorock, but agree with a commenter that its more “experimental” and “obscure” than something you can actually dance to.

As for that “problem” though, the author definitely has a point. Just type “trance” into a Youtube search and see for yourself:

Thoughts? Any more quality K-pop (or covers or remixes) out there that should be much better known? Would you say the objectifying imagery is simply because — I assume — most of the DJs are male? Or some other reason?

*Update: Link is just about the regional Wellington competition sorry. Any sources on the national competition would be appreciated.

Pornography is art, sometimes harmonious, sometimes dissonant. Its glut and glitter are a Babylonian excess. Modern middle-class women cannot bear the thought that their hard-won professional achievements can be outweighed in an instant by a young hussy flashing a little tits and ass. But the gods have given her power, and we must welcome it. Pornography forces a radical reassessment of sexual value, nature’s bequest of our tarnished treasure.

Camille Paglia, Vamps & Tramps, 1994.

For reasons of space and propriety, an opening quote that didn’t make it to my latest article for Busan Haps. But, without denying for a moment that there’s been a lot of gratuitous T&A in K-pop this summer, with many more examples in just the few weeks since this article was written, I think it brings a healthy dose of realism to the discussion, and frames the quote on Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime show in the conclusion nicely. Please click on the image to see what I mean.

For much more on the concept of sexual objectification, why it can sometimes be positive, and why consent is so important for determining that, please see here. Also, a must-read is Peter Robinson’s “Naked women in pop videos: art, misogyny or downright cynical?” in The Guardian from last week, which raises many of the same issues (and is a reminder that the “pornification” of K-pop still has quite a long way to go).

(Jia of Rubber Duckie; source)

This translated article is maddeningly short on details, and the author writes as if sexual attractiveness and musical ability were mutually exclusive. But it’s good for learning some of the names out there.

Can any readers tell me any more about any of the bands mentioned, or recommend any grrrl-power songs of theirs to translate? :)

성 상품화 판치는 가요계, 걸밴드의 비애 / Girl Bands’ Disillusionment as Sexual Objectification Reigns Supreme over the Music World

Nate News via StarIN, 15/11/2012, by Cho Woo-yeong

왼쪽부터 시계방향으로 스윙즈, 스윗리벤지, 러버더키(사진=디앤씨뮤직 제공) / Caption — Clockwise from left: Swingz, Sweet Revenge, Rubber Duckie (Photo= DNC Music)

여성록밴드 ‘런어웨이즈’(Runaways)를 아는가. 런어웨이즈는 1970년대 후반 미국 록 음악계의 견고한 남성 카르텔에 당당히 도전장을 내밀었던 10대 걸밴드다. 이들은 당시 여성의 자유와 해방, 저항 정신의 아이콘이었다.

Do you know the US Girl Rock Band “The Runaways”? They were a group of teens that set it upon themselves to boldly challenge the firm male cartel of the US rock world in the late-1970s. At the time, they were an icon of female liberation, resistance, and rebellion.

기성음반 제작자들은 런어웨이즈의 저항 의식을 철저히 상업화했다. 결국 이들은 자신 스스로 무대에서 옷을 벗는 등 성적 상품화되는 데 익숙해져 버렸다. 약 3년간의 활동기 동안 런어웨이즈는 해방을 부르짖으면서 정작 자신들은 해방될 수 없었던 역설을 노래했다. 그들은 결코 자유롭지 않았던 셈이다.

(Cherry Bomb, their signature 1976 hit which went to #1 in Japan)

Their seasoned record producers would strongly promote this image of them. [However], ultimately the group became used to taking off their clothes and sexually objectifying themselves. Doing this for about 3 years, while singing about independence they would also sing about [the irony of] how they lacked that independence themselves. In the end, they had never been free.

30여년이 지난 지금, 대한민국 록 음악계는 어떨까. 음반 제작자들의 마인드와 환경은 변했을지 몰라도 대중의 인식은 크게 달라지지 않았다. 록은 여전히 남자들의 전유물이다. ‘자우림’ 김윤아, ‘체리필터’ 조유진 같은 몇몇 여성 멤버가 팀의 보컬을 맡아 인기를 끌고 있으나 홍일점일 뿐이다.

Roughly 30 years have passed since then — what is the Korean rock industry like? [Unfortunately], while the minds of producers and the environment has changed, the public’s remains largely the same. Rock will always be a man’s world. Kim Yun-ah of Jaurim, Cho You-jeen of Cherry Filter, and others like them are popular vocalists of their groups but are also the only female members in them [source, right].

국내에서 온전한 여성 밴드는 다섯 손가락으로 꼽을 수 있다. 홍대 인디신서 현재 이름이 알려진 여성 밴드는 스윙즈, 와인홀비너스, 스윗 리벤지(Sweet revenge), 러버 더키(Rubber Duckie), 니아(NIA) 정도다. 최근에 씨엔블루·FT아일랜드 소속사에서 내놓은 에이오에이(AOA)가 인기를 끌고 있지만 이들은 아이돌 밴드에 가깝다. 상업적으로 최소한의 수익을 담보한 걸그룹 색깔을 포기하지 못했다.

Domestically, the number of all-female rock bands can be counted on just one hand. Well known in Hongdae at the moment are Swingz, Wind Hold Venus, Sweet Revenge, Rubber Duckie, and NIA. Also, recently CNBlue and FT Island’s management company [FNC Entertainment] has been promoting the popular AOA, but they are very similar to a typical idol band — FNC couldn’t give up on getting at least a minimum profit from them.

이들 모두 밴드로서의 기본인 작사·작곡 능력과 악기 연주 실력을 갖췄다. 웬만한 남성 밴드 못지않다. 특히 KBS2 ‘톱밴드2’에 얼굴을 내비친 스윙즈는 3차 예선까지 올랐다. 660팀 가운데 49강이었다. 다소 부족한 경험과 긴장 탓에 중도 탈락의 고배를 마셨으나 심사위원 신대철과 김도균으로부터 “떨어지기 아까운 밴드”라는 칭찬을 받았다.

All these bands have the skills necessary to be described as such (writing lyrics, composing songs, and being able to play instruments), and are just as good as their all-male counterparts. In particular, Swingz came to prominence through competing in Top Band 2 on KBS2, coming 49th out of 660 teams and making it to the 3rd round, but ultimately failing through inexperience and nerves. Judges Shin Dae-chul and Kim Do-kyun complimented them and said it was a pity they didn’t make it further in the competition.

James – Over at Koreanindie, Dahee confirms that Swingz were betrayed by their nervousness (see here for more on their performance in earlier rounds). Yet a much more interesting — if controversial — choice of Top Band 2 group to discuss might have been Rubber Duckie instead, who Dahee alleges suffered from the judges’ own stereotypes of female musicians on the one hand, but who Lightinthemind alleges emphasized their “charm and cuteness and looks” rather than their musical ability on the other:

Dahee: Right away I’m struck with the bad choice of songs for Rubber Duckie. Their vocals aren’t strong enough for the cover song, and it doesn’t really show off their charms very well. And then Shin Dae Chul starts talking about how some of the judges whispered amongst themselves before their performance that “The guitar is a man’s instrument”(!!!), and how hard it is to find a good female guitarist. I cannot believe he is saying this. The guitarist kind of looks like she wants to sock him in the face. And then he compliments her on her skills, saying “I didn’t know you’d be so good,” meaning he didn’t expect much from her BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN. Ugh. Sorry, Shin, but you’re officially on my shit list now. Maybe it’s this kind of attitude that stops women from taking up the electric guitar in the first place, ever thought of that? I wonder if Rubber Duckie has to deal with this kind of bullshit on a regular basis? This also makes me wonder why there isn’t a female judge. Would it have been so hard for them to get someone like Kim Yoon Ah on the panel?

Lightinthemind: Urgh… I have double feelings here. No, triple-way feelings. First, I like their attempt to pull off another song which is not as sweet as their own. Unfortunately it wasn’t so successful but at least they tried. Second, I also liked the guitar solo and can agree with Shin Dae Chul that to find women playing guitar on this level is a rarity. And it is not a thing of feminism here. Just a fact. How many really famous females guitarist do we know? Can you name? And third, the thing that I don’t like in girlish bands. If you take advantage of your charm and cuteness and looks, don’t pretend that you weren’t expecting all these compliments from other musicians and that attitude towards you. ‘That’ means “oh, such pretty young girls, let’s enjoy their young bright faces cause they won’t be able to compete here anyway’’. Sorry again, but this sweety image these groups are taking is hurting my teeth. That is why I was relieved when they took the Sixpence None the Richer cover. Hope that they would concentrate on really doing music rather than entertaining with their looks.

For the record, a September 2010 interview in the now defunct Neh Magazine (p.16) also fixates on their looks — but that may or may not be the fault of the interviewer rather than Rubber Duckie themselves. Either way, alleged prejudiced judges and/or allegedly exploiting one’s looks would certainly disrupt author Cho Woo-yeong’s breezy narrative here, which is possibly why Rubber Duckie weren’t also interviewed (although I concede they may simply have been unavailable).

Continuing:

스윙즈는 “그럼에도 사람들의 선입견을 바꾸기는 아직 어렵다”고 고충을 털어놨다. ‘걸(Girl)’ 밴드에 대한 대중의 편견 때문이다. 걸밴드가 무대에 오르면 대부분 사람은 ‘너희가 해 봐야 얼마나 잘하겠어’라는 생각부터 머릿속에 떠올린다. 아무리 실력이 좋아도 ‘어? 좀 하네’ 식의 반응이 돌아온다. 스윙즈는 “남성 밴드들보다 두 배 세 배 더 연습했다. 인정받지 못하는 서운함보다 보이지 않는 벽이 존재한다는 사실에 부담감이 크다”고 말했다.

Swingz lamented that “Rather than that setback, we’re more saddened that the public’s preconceptions about girl rock bands haven’t changed. When we step on stage, people think ‘Let’s see how good they are,’ but no matter our ability they will still think we’re ‘just okay’ [at best].” They continued “Compared to male bands, we have to practice two to three times more. But it’s not that the public doesn’t acknowledge us that really gets us down — it’s the unseen barriers thrown in the way [of female performers].”

아쉬운 점은 이들이 단지 여성이라는 이유로, 무대 매너나 음악적 역량이 아닌 성적 매력이 얼마 만큼 있느냐가 먼저 평가되는 현실이다. ‘홍대 여자 싱어송라이터’에서 ‘홍대 여신’이란 중의적인 의미의 대명사로 굳어진 요조·타루 등 미모의 여성 가수들 인기와 달콤한 노래가 이러한 편견을 더했다. 우리 사회가 얼마나 여성 가수의 외모에 민감한지를 단적으로 드러내는 대목이다.

What’s regretful is that, as female performers, they are judged more on their sexual attractiveness and charms than their stage manners and musical ability. The sweet songs and popularity of pretty female singers Yozoh and Taru, who were originally known as ‘Hongdae female singer-songwriters,’ have added to this sentiment through their transformation into ‘Hongdae goddesses’ instead. That female singers have to be so careful about their appearance like this directly exposes a flaw of our society.[source, right]

스윙즈는 “우리가 아무리 혼신의 힘을 다 해도 결론은 항상 ‘예뻐요’라는 목소리가 들려온다”며 “물론 그 역시 팬분들의 소중한 응원이지만 기왕이면 ‘연주 멋졌어요’라는 말을 듣고 싶다”고 바랐다.

Swingz said “No matter how much work we put in, in the end we just hear cries of ‘You’re so pretty!’,” and wished that, “Although of course we do find our fans’ support valuable, we really want them to say “That was a great performance!’ instead.”

세상이 바뀌었지만 일부 우리 정서에는 남존여비 사상도 뿌리깊게 박혀 있다. 스윙즈는 “걸밴드는 호사가들의 입방아에 오르내리기 쉽다”고 한숨을 내쉬었다. 공연이 끝난 후 뒤풀이 때 맥주 한 잔 마셨을 뿐인데 다음날 ‘술고래’가 돼 있다. 다른 남성 밴드 멤버와 친해져 차(茶)도 마시고 늦은 시간까지 함께 연습이라도 했다가는 ‘두 사람이 그렇고 그런 사이’라는 소문이 돌아 활동에 타격을 받기 십상이다.

The world has changed, but this patriarchal system is deeply embedded in our unconscious. Swingz sighed “Girl bands are an easy target of gossipers. If we have one beer after a hard performance, we’re labelled alcoholics. If we go out late and have a friendly cup of tea with a member of a male band, we’re hit with all sorts of rumors about our relationship.” [source, left]

윤정주 여성연예인인권지원센터 소장은 “그간 여성의 선정적인 콘셉트를 내세워 돈을 벌려는 일부 기획사와 그를 쫓는 대중·미디어의 책임이 크다”고 지적했다. 음악적 실력보다 성적 매력을 부각하는 기획사와 이를 자극적으로 확대·재생산하는 미디어가 여성에 대한 대중의 인식을 가볍게 하고 있다는 설명이다.

Yun Jeong-ju, head of the Female Entertainers’ Human Rights Support Center [below; source], pointed out that “The media has a big responsibility for management companies making money through using sexy concepts with women and for the public following that trend.” The widely-held notion that sexual attractiveness is more important than music ability is heavily encouraged by the media.

대중이 다양한 장르의 가수들을 주목하기 어려운 상황에서 이러한 악순환은 반복된다. 윤 소장은 “록 장르 자체가 우리나라에서는 비주류인데다 남성성이 강한 분야여서 여성들이 진출하기 어렵다”면서 “그들이 ‘섹시 가수’에 밀려 미디어 속에서 배제되고 있는 현실이 더 높은 장벽”이라고 말했다.

This leads to a viscous circle whereby [female] singers from varied genres [beyond K-pop] get ignored by the public. Yun continued “In Korea, rock isn’t mainstream and is dominated by men; it’s difficult for women to get ahead in that world,” and that “The media creates a high barrier for [female] singers by placing them [so far] behind sexy ones.” (end)

As always, I appreciate any corrections, and thanks from my long suffering wife to some of my FB and Twitter followers for help with some questions I had while I was working on the translation!

Click on the image to find the reasons, in an Paste Magazine article by Rachel Baily I was interviewed for this summer (and promptly forgot about — sorry!). Make sure to check out Busan Haps for a 2011 interview too, or here, here, and here for more on Waveya, Ga-in, and Wonderbaby also mentioned by Rachel.

Meanwhile, sorry for the slow posting everyone, but I’ve had — still have — a lot of offline deadlines, and the new semester is proving a lot of work. But I aim to have a big post up next week! :)

Update: Make that the week after next — I ended up catching one of those frustrating, lingering colds sorry.

(Source)

Model and actress Esom (이솜; a.k.a. Lee Som), wearing a Native American(?) headdress in one photo from her recent shoot for OhBoy! magazine.

While it’s not directly related, ignorant and/or insensitive cultural appropriation is a big problem in K-pop especially. For an excellent primer on that, with many links and discussions of previous posts and articles, I recommend “Of Misconceptions About Cultural Appropriation in K-pop” by Assoc. Prof. Crystal Anderson of Elon University, at her blog High Yellow. Also, for something more recent, check out “The trouble with kpop” at Radio Palava, or the following video by Youtube user “Itsbrittany lajoyce“:

Meanwhile, nothing against Esom of course, who was likely given little choice in the outfits she would wear. See here for many more photoshoots of hers.

Update: I forgot about another recent example with Lee Hyori, in a photoshoot for the August 2013 edition of Dazed and Confused (Korea) magazine. See Audrey Magazine or Omona They Didn’t! for the details (Update 2: More pictures available here).

(For more posts in the Korean Sociological Image series, see here)

(Source: Unknown)

Introducing the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale for the first time, Kinsey once wrote:

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories… The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.”

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) pp. 639, 656.

And, although the scale itself is now considered insufficient to cover all sexual expressions, obviously that sentiment was/is just as true for females. Sure enough, the scale also featured prominently in Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953; Wikipedia).

Why do I mention all this? Because, even if just for a few minutes, and even if you’re only prepared to admit it to yourself, this superb 2006 performance by then 20 year-old Jeong Hyeon-Min (정현민) is seriously going to make many, many readers reconsider where they lie on that scale exactly…

Jump ahead to 2:30 for his rendition of Lee Hyori’s 10 Minutes, which you can compare below:

As you can see in the video, Hyeon-Min deservedly won that “sexy dance” competition, and gained a lot of media attention for it at the time (he was reportedly the only male in it). Unfortunately however, those appear to have been his fifteen minutes of fame, as I’ve been unable to find anything more about him since.

Instead, see here, here, and here for much more on androgyny and/or cross-dressing in K-pop, with many more recent, higher video quality examples. Also, please feel free to add more in the comments here too, although I suspect none will compare to the quality and skill of Hyeon-Min’s! :D

(Source)

Has it been a year already?

Sorry for the slow posting everyone — I’ve had a bad cold for over two weeks. But, serendipitously, it’s a great time to be thinking about Miss A again, their second album Hush being released just a few hours ago.

Sure enough, I’ve just learned about the connections between their 2012 song I Don’t Need a Man and Independent Women by Destiny’s Child, through translating the following music column. I completely overlooked them when I compared Miss A’s song to Bloom by Ga-in, and it’s made me keen to learn more about the genealogy of the seven new songs coming up too, especially as JYP is no longer composing them.

Unfortunately though, letting us know about those connections proves to be just about the only thing of interest in the column, and in hindsight they were also pointed out by many other commentators last year, who discussed them in much greater depth. So, after I post my translation, I’ll do my best to sum-up that earlier commentary, for the sake of readers like me who are also only just now learning of the ties to Destiny’s Child.

But first, to refresh your memory (with just the Korean, Romanized, and English lyrics):

The music video itself:

Here’s Destiny’s Child Independent Women:

Here are the lyrics alone:

Technically, those last two were Part 1, and here’s Part 2 below, which is why (duh) Miss A’s mini-album was called Independent Women Part 3. But beyond this sole video, I’ve been unable to find any more information about Part 2 specifically, so would appreciate it if any readers can help out.

Finally, here’s a video of Destiny’s Child reuniting to perform the song at the last Superbowl. Also, see Sociological Images for a response to misguided complaints of Beyoncé’s (alleged) sexual objectification in her performance, which I applied to K-pop here:

Which brings us to the (curiously-titled) column:

고민없는 이야기는 고민없이 들어야 할까 / Do We Have to Listen to a Story Without Worry…Without Worry?

Ilda Women’s Journal, 6 October 2013

– 음악칼럼 ‘블럭의 한 곡 들여다보기’가 연재됩니다. 필자 ‘블럭(bluc)’님은 음악웹진 스캐터브레인의 편집자이자 흑인음악 매거진 힙합엘이의 운영진입니다. [편집자 주]

– This is the music column “Let’s Check out a Song with Bluc.” Bluc is a writer for webzine Scatterbrain and the manager of black music magazine Hiphop LE.

데스티니스 차일드의 오마주 / A Homage to Destiny’s Child

“남자 없이 잘 살아”는 2012년 10월에 미스에이(Miss A)가 EP(Extended Play, 미니앨범) [Independent Women Part III]를 발표하면서, 첫 싱글로 선택하여 활동했던 곡이다. 곡은 나쁘지 않은 흥행 성적을 거두었고, 생각보다 크지는 않았지만 가사 내용으로도 나름의 주목을 받았다.

In October last year, “I Don’t Need a Man” was released as the lead track of Miss A’s extended play mini-album, “Independent Women Part III.” It was moderately popular, and the lyrics also received some attention, although not as much as I expected.

음반 보도자료에서는 이 곡을 “당당하고 독립적인 여성상을 그린 서던힙합 곡”이라고 소개했다. 근데 정말 이 곡은 홍보 내용 그대로일까?

The music media portrayed introduced the song as “Southern [US] hip-hop style with bold and independent women.” But do the contents live up to the PR hype?

(Source)

우선 앨범 제목(Independent Women Part III)이 다소 뜬금없이 파트 3으로 건너뛰는 이유에 대해서 찾아보니, 이전에 미국 3인조 알앤비 걸그룹 데스티니스 차일드(Destiny’s Child)가 “Independent Women” 이라는 이름의 곡을 Part 1과 2라는 이름으로 발표한 바 있다. 말하자면 이번 앨범의 컨셉을 데스티니스 차일드의 오마주 격으로 쓴 것이다. 전후 이야기를 알고 보니 원곡들의 가사와 의도를 따라 “남자 없이 잘 살아”라는 곡을 만든 이유, 동시에 타이틀 곡으로 밀게 된 이유를 어느 정도 짐작할 수 있다.

Frist, the album title — Independent Women Part III — comes a little out of the blue. Researching the reason for it, I learned it came from the “Independent Women” Part 1 and Part 2 songs of Destiny’s Child, a former US girl’s R&B group — this album concept was written as a homage to them. From this, I was able to make a guess as to why Miss A followed the lyrics of the original Destiny’s Child song(s) and why they made “I Don’t Need a Man” the title track.

그러나 미안한 이야기지만 데스티니스 차일드의 원곡은 그렇게 감수성을 지닌 곡이 아니다. 2000년에 발표된 영화 <미녀 삼총사>의 OST인데, 영화는 세 명의 천사라고 불리는 사립탐정들이 사건을 해결해 나가는 내용이다. 극중 세 여성은 당당하고 진취적인 캐릭터이다. 그런 맥락을 따라 OST 중 하나로 “Independent Women”이라는 곡을 쓴 것이다.

However, although I hate to say this, the original Destiny’s Child song is not very inspiring or moving. It was made in 2000 for the movie Charlie’s Angels, about three private detectives who solve crimes. Their characters are all bold and take the initiative, and the song “Independent Women” followed accordingly.

(Source)

영화 자체가 할리우드 특유의 가부장적 남성성이나 여성의 시각적 상품화를 벗어난 것이 아니기 때문에, OST 수록곡 역시 영화가 지닌 감수성에서 크게 벗어나지 않는다. 그나마 강인한 캐릭터에 어느 정도 틀을 맞춰가다 보니 “남자 없이 잘 살아”와 비슷한 내용의 가사가 나오게 된 것이다.

Because the movie just has the typical Hollywood patriarchal male sexuality and visual objectification of women, likewise the songs in the soundtrack don’t stray very far from that vibe. Nevertheless the lyrics of “Independent Women” do match the actresses’ strong characters and the later lyrics of “I Don’t Need a Man” to a certain extent.

(Source)

“당당하고 독립적인 여성상”이란 무엇일까 What is the form of a bold, independent woman?

사실 원곡의 가사와 비교해보면 “남자 없이 잘 살아”의 절반 정도는 번안에 가깝다. 원곡과 이 곡 모두 들었을 때 뚜렷한 상이 떠오르지 않는 일차적이고 추상적인 문구들로 채워져 있다. 그래서 가사는 다소 유치하게 느껴진다. 그리고 “나는 함부로 날 안 팔아”, 혹은 “잘나진 않았지만 자신감은 넘쳐”, “남자 믿고 놀다 남자 떠나면 어떡할 거야” 등 한 발짝 빼는 듯한 뉘앙스로 수세적인 표현들이 이어진다.

About half of the lyrics of “I Don’t Need a Man” closely follow those of “Independent Women.” When you listen to both songs, no clear images emerge, as they are full of vague, abstract lines. So, to a large extent the lyrics sound childish. Also, lines like “I won’t sell myself short,” “I’m not the best but I’m full of confidence,” and “If you just mindlessly attach yourself to a man, what will you do if he leaves?” and so on stand out for their defensiveness.

그 결과, 곡은 독립적인 여성을 표방하려는 시도는 좋았으나 일종의 편견을 드러내고 있다. 남녀간의 관계만이 ‘관계’인가? 하는 질문부터 해볼 수도 있겠으나 생략하고, ‘독립적인 여성상’이라고 했을 때 단순히 경제력만 이야기하고 있다는 점, 동시에 그 경제력이 남성에 비해 낮다는 전제만을 깔고 있다는 점에서 그러하다. 남자가 작사해서 그렇다고는 말하지 않겠다. 혼자 작사했는지 혹은 멤버들의 의견이 반영되었는지도 모르는 일이고, 그렇게 생각하는 것도 일종의 선입견이 될 수 있으니까.

As a result, although it’s a good attempt at propounding the notion of independent women, it shows certain biases. First, are relationships between men and women the only ones to be concerned about? I could start with that question, but will pass. Instead, also note that when the song talks about independent women, it’s simply in terms of their economic power, and moreover this economic power is always compared to that of men’s and implied to be lower. I’m not saying that this is because the lyrics were written by a man, as we don’t know if he wrote the song alone, or if he incorporated the group members’ opinions. But either way, it does show this bias.

(Source)

아쉬운 것은, 별 고민이 느껴지지 않는 가사이다. 우리 사회 전반적인 인식의 수준에 비춰보았을 때 이 곡은 큰 문제는 없지만, 나름의 반향을 일으킬 수도 있을 것이다. 그러나 그것은 정확한 위치가 없는 반쪽짜리 반향일 뿐이다. 독립적인 여성상을 메인 테마로 세운 것은 좋았다. 흔히 가부장제 사회에서 이야기하는 ‘수동적, 피지배적, 감정적, 도구적’인 여성에서 벗어난 것도 좋다. 하지만 자신감 넘친다고 말하면서도 어딘가 부족해 보이는 자존감이 아쉬운 것이다. 어쩌면 ‘남자 없이 잘 사는 여자’ 역시 성공과 물질, 외적 조건을 중시하는 기존 사회가 요구하는 여성상의 변형 판이 아닐까.

Unfortunately, the lyrics prove to be shallow. If you consider our society’s general knowledge [of feminism, the position of women etc.], this is not a big problem, but it does mean that the song, which was intended to rock the boat, only caused a few ripples.

[Still],it is good that it ran with the theme of independent women, and challenged common images of passive, controlled, sensitive, and objectified women in our patriarchal society. Also, it puts a spin on societal norms that require women to emphasize success and consumption. However, while it is good that the lyrics were overflowing with confidence, at the same time the protagonist(s) don’t have enough self-respect.

마지막으로, 이 곡은 서던 힙합(미국 남부에서 발생하여 유행하는 곡 스타일) 곡이라고 하기에는 다소 무리가 있다. 물론 서던 힙합이라고 할 수 있는 BPM(음악속도)과 분위기를 지니고 있기는 하나, 풀어내는 방식은 팝 곡이라고 할 수 있다. 안무 속에 잠시 남부에서 유행했던 춤 스타일들을 차용하였기에 서던 힙합이라고 했을 가능성도 크다. 그러나 이 춤도 사실 2000년대 후반에 유행했던, 시기가 좀 지난 춤이다. 개인적으로는 이래 저래 아쉬움이 많은 곡이다.

Finally, it is difficult to claim that this is Southern US Hip-hop. Certainly, it has the atmosphere and BPM of the genre, but it comes across as pop — there’s a strong possibility that it’s called hip-hop only because of the style of dance (and, being popular in the late-2000s, that would make the dance style in the video quite old). [Either way], personally I have a lot of regrets about this song. (End)

(Source)

And now on to (hopefully) more incisive commentary. But first, a reminder of what made Destiny’s Child — and still makes Beyoncé — so distinctive:

This hardworking act of [Destiny's Child] could be guaranteed a fair share of [their huge sales] because Beyoncé took a major role in songwriting and production. On The Writing’s On The Wall, for instance, she wrote and co-produced 17 tracks with beat architects Shek’spere and Timbaland, helping to create the Destiny’s Child trademark sound of bass rhythms, baroque samples, and daring vocal harmonies, a cross between TLC and Kraftwerk. By the time of 2001′s Survivor, Beyoncé had graduated to sole producer on most tracks. Despite disruptive line-up changes, the group remained consistently at the top of the charts. Much of this was due to Beyoncé’s leadership and innate sense of what was appropriate for them….

….Within a few years Beyoncé had ‘done a Diana Ross’ and embarked upon a widely successful solo career…I wasn’t surprised — the young woman I met [in 2000] was determined and focused, her single-minded approach tempered by a Southern-style grace….

…Second singer Kelly Rowland didn’t fare too badly either…Destiny’s Child had learned from the experience of their idols The Supremes, retaining control and living out the message of independence that they preached in their songs.

(Lucy O’Brien, She Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Popular Music (2012), pp. 249-250; my emphases. Source, above)

As such icons, I’d really like to like their music. Alas, I don’t, and glossed over references to them a year ago because I much preferred to read about Miss A and Ga-in instead. Also, because what girl-group with a bit of spunk isn’t glibly compared to one from the ‘girl-power era‘ these days?

Indeed — seriously — I found one in the very next tab I opened as I typed that:

The front woman of 2NE1, the undisputed queens of the wildly popular Korean subgenre known as K-Pop, CL (aka Chaelin Lee) launched her solo career this summer with the single “The Baddest Female.” The lithe and spunky ballerina–meets–Fly Girl careers in and out of English and Korean, rapping and singing about gold chains, B-boys, and private planes. The accompanying video racked up around 1 million views on YouTube in less than 24 hours, but despite that success, CL vows not to Beyoncé her bandmates to the curb, citing personal exploration as the impetus for stepping out on her own. Where have we heard that one before?

(Source. In fairness, I too just compared Ailee to Beyoncé in my latest K-pop review for Busan Haps. But I can — and will — justify that in a later post!)

That aside, I’m certainly paying attention now. While I can’t pretend that the following is an exhaustive look at the debates about both songs, from what I have read I’ve found that people who compare them generally make one of two arguments.

The first, is that any sense of feminist empowerment gained from Miss A’s song is a form of false consciousness. After all, you cant help but note it was written by a man, namely JYP himself; that it seems to be about nothing but men; and, some claim, that it even seems to be directed towards men too. Whereas men are only notable for their absence in Independent Women.

In particular, one anonymous commenter lays the blame for this squarely on the male-dominated idol-system as a whole:

The main obstacle to real female empowerment messages in Kpop is that these “feminist messages” are coming from idols whose every statement, performance and lyric comes from the minds of men. All the directors of note are men, all but a slight few of the songwriters are men, the entertainment companies are all run by men. See the trend? I wonder right now, honestly, if a strong-willed Korean girl who wants to write songs and speak out on gender inequality in her country would even be heard — that is just wrong.

2NE1 is a group I respect very much because a lot of their music comes from a place of female empowerment, not specifically male bashing or placing too much emphasis on others instead of self. I like that, and think it is the right way to go — but if that message stopped selling records, would they tell YG to shove it and keep screaming female empowerment because they believe strongly in what they are doing and their message? More importantly, would they be ABLE to keep going without Teddy Park writing those messages into their songs?

The start isn’t going to happen until someone starts caring more about the message than being a world famous idol. Somebody has to lay the groundwork in Kpop for real empowering feminist theory — not just sing a half-feminist message without knowing a God damn thing about the subject in order to sell records. Otherwise, all we’ll ever see from Kpop is a girl group come out with a song like this one every now and again…

And, expanding on that last in a later comment: (source, right)

Less hollow girl power anthems targeted at consumers, and more sincere female empowerment statements are needed for Korea. Especially if an artist is going to scream female empowerment on one single, and then go right back to dropping a feminist message to go to whichever new message their writers deign to have them cover on the next. Consistency is needed so much more than a girl power message that is just going to get lost as soon as a group moves onto the next promotional cycle.

I make many of the same points about the need for a consistent feminist message in my Who are the Korean Pin-up Grrrls series, and couldn’t help but note with sadness that 2NE1 are the only girl-group that come close to having one among the 14 most popular girl-groups at the moment.

That said, the second argument often made is that Miss A’s effort is actually very apt for, and even radical in its Korean context, where many especially unmarried women have much more restricted, much more dependent lives than their Western counterparts. Rebecca at Kpop for Noobcakes has written a lot about this, and is especially good — see under the screenshot — at linking it to specific scenes in the music video:

…family approval is…extremely important in finding a suitable life partner, and surely contributes to the aspirations to date a wealthier or more influential man.

Taking this in mind, this music video really goes against what Korean culture has to say about dating, while still maintaining the values of Korean society as a whole. Koreans are very work focused, and believe that the only way to be successful is to work hard. This music video’s goal is to tell women that as long as they work hard they should feel good about themselves. The first few lines of the first verse are about how proud she is about living paycheck to paycheck providing for herself, and paying her own rent.

She goes on to talk about how most Korean women (and men) live with their parents until marriage. That’s certainly true, although also note that Korea has one of the highest rates of growth of single households in the world (with more of them now than in both the US and Australia), albeit most of them being middle-aged men and elderly women rather than Sex and the City-esque singles (my emphases):

Since it’s so hard to rent a space by oneself, many young men and women live with their parents. This is acceptable in Korean society, because like other Asian societies, Korea has just recently transitioned from a “clan” or “family” first mentality. As a result, young women have a tendency to rely on their parents for the purchase of items, as shown in Jia’s first verse. The girl with the Kangaroo card [above] keeps sucking up to her father to get items that she wants…

…As media themselves, Miss A go in a Lipstick Feminism direction, and don’t give up traditionally feminine items throughout most of the music video as they are allowed to wear dresses and makeup. They even have giant beauty products dispersed throughout the video. It’s their lack of reliance on a man to purchase items for themselves and their disinterest in the dating scene that goes directly against the theme of most Kpop music videos and Korean dramas.

(Source)

So, is I Don’t Need a Man by, about, and for men, or is it Independent Women’s kid-Korean cousin? Both arguments have merits really, and they’re not mutually exclusive either. But I’m tending towards the latter view, as it centers on Korean women’s increasing financial power and reflection of that in their consumption choices, for which they’ve been victims of a popular social and media backlash ever since the 1990s, and especially from the late-2000s (see my Revealing the Korean Body Politic series — Part One, Two, Three, Four; also here and here — for more information).

Gomushin Girl’s comment to my post on Bloom illustrates this well:

I think that there’s an effort to portray Miss A’s members as criticizing feminine consumption in Korea (note that they’re lecturing the ladies getting their hair done, etc., and are always positioned well ahead of background couples and women who are actually engaging in consumption) in “I Don’t Need a Man.” I don’t know that it’s visually as clear and effective as it could be, but it *is* there.

Which is also, as noted above, a problem – it positions Miss A as “good” through their disengagement in feminine habits, while “bad” women allow men to support them and fund their consumption of material goods. It also doesn’t acknowledge that many women (and men) *enjoy* getting their hair and nails done, dressing stylishly, or shopping, in a way that is independent of how it equips them for the male gaze…It also gets a little confused in its capitalist critique, constantly mentioning that it’s better to have a small salary from satisfying work than lots of money through other means, but also mentions things like owning ones own car, which for most young Koreans would be a bit of a luxury purchase. Even a decent used car will probably cost you more than many luxury handbags (which you can also get used).

To be clear, I don’t think that Miss A’s song is a fantastic manifesto, but I don’t think it’s nearly as problematic as [another commenter was] making it out to be. Particularly in a place like Korea, where marital/dating status really does define women, singing clearly and distinctly about financial emancipation from (male) lovers and parents is . . . well, kind of awesome. And I don’t think in Korea that a song that did not relate that emancipation to gender would be either convincing or very meaningful. That particular kind of *not* needing is significant (source, above).

I would just add that my impression is that people are more critical of I Don’t Need a Man than Independent Women because it seemed have a greater emphasis on consumption. So, it was with a certain surprise and irony that I read the following at Snippets of Stories, albeit written by someone who is also a complete beginner on Beyoncé and Destiny’s Child:

I am extremely ignorant when it comes to Beyoncé, especially compared to most of y’all reading this, but the thing I find most fascinating about her work is the materialism of it. Pretty much every song I can think of off the top of my head — again, we’re talking the most frequently played songs, my knowledge is pretty shallow — relies on very specific, recognizable details of ownership and consumption to get the message across. Such as the car keys and suitcases in “Irreplaceable,” the “come pick up your clothes” line* of “Me, Myself and I,” the discussions of what can and can’t be bought in “Independent Women (Part I)” and “Bills, Bills, Bills,” the Dereon jeans in “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It),” and “Tennis shoes, don’t even need to buy a new dress” in “Crazy in Love.”

(Source)

And on that note, let me again defer to readers — probably most of you — more knowledgeable than myself. Also, my apologies to any of you that expected a post on Hush — I too would have preferred to complete this one two weeks ago (sniff!), and I’ll try to give their new album a proper look soon. But first, my promised post on A’s Doll House!

Update: Aaaaand…as I searched for that final illustration above, I discovered I’d completely missed the excellent “Is this feminism? A critical look at miss A’s I don’t need a man” at J-Popping, which references and considerably expands upon “[Op-Ed] Questioning miss A’s ‘I Don’t Need a Man’: Are They Truly Independent?” at allkpop. Enjoy!

(L-R: Jihae, Sojin, Yura, Haeri, Minah. Source)

Humbert called Lolita ”the ideal consumer, the subject and object of every foul poster.” Damon Trent sounded the same theme while writing about ”the new Lolitocracy” in Spy Magazine last year. ”In the last five years, our own civilization has developed a bit of a thing for teen-age girls” and girls know it. Indeed, he added, ”every man woman, and child among us has become a vile, pustulating pedophile.”

In this stew of allegorical, sociological, high-minded speculation, you’ve got to admire Groucho Marx’s ineluctably moral position on the novel: ”I am going to put off reading ‘Lolita’ for six years, till she’s 18.”

(“Think Tank; ‘Lolita’ Turns 40, Still Arguing for A Right to Exist,” by Sarah Boxer, The New York Times, August 1998)

Sorry for the long break everyone, and I hope the following translation compensates, easily the longest and most academic (in style) I’ve ever worked on. By this anonymous blogger, I was sold as soon as I saw Theodor Adorno mentioned, as it’s very rare to find commentary on Kpop that reference any theories of popular culture. It’s also a good introduction to Girl’s Day too.

That said, unfortunately the blogger uses many terms very vaguely and interchangeably, and his(?) analysis of their hit Twinkle Twinkle could easily be a third of its length. However, admittedly I’ve yet to work on Part 2 where he discusses a Maxim photoshoot, compares Twinkle Twinkle to their previous songs, and looks at their additional hit Hug Me Once, or indeed Part 3 on Adorno, so I’m hoping his writing becomes more concise later.

Also, please note that: a) it was written in August 2012, when Girl’s Day was a five-member group (Woo Ji-hae/우지해 would leave for personal reasons in October), and nearly a year before their hit Female President was released; and b) that it was originally a single, stand-alone post, which I’ve only split into three parts here because of its length:

대중음악 속에 파고들기 시작한 롤리토크라시의 성상품화: 걸스데이를 중심으로 Lolitocracy’s Sexual Objectification Taking a Hold of Popular Music: Girl’s Day as a Case Study

1. 서론 / Introduction

최근 ‘은교’라는 영화가 출시되어 세간에 이목을 끌고 있다. 70대 노시인과 10대 소녀의  성적인 탐욕을 그리고 있는 이 영화는 대중의 많은 관심을 받으며 개봉 전부터 영화계를 뜨겁게 달아올리고 있다. 이 영화가 이렇게 개봉 전부터 세간을 떠들썩하게 할 수 있는 이유는 영화 <해피엔드>의 정지우 감독이 연출을 맡았기 때문이기도 하지만 무엇보다도 이 영화의 주제가 우리 사회에서 금기시 되고 있는 ‘롤리타 콤플렉스’를 노골적으로 다루고 있기 때문이다. 아직 성적으로 성숙하지 못한 소녀에 대한 성애(性愛)적 욕망은 점점 개방적이고 다원화되는 문화 산업에서조차 다소 금기시되어온 주제였기에 이러한 영화의 대담한 발상은 ‘기존의 금기를 깨는 발칙한 상상의 즐거움’을 대중에게 선사하며 대중들의 관심을 사로잡은 것이다.

Recently, the movie A Muse/Eun-gyo has been gaining a lot of public attention. About a man in his seventies who develops a strong sexual desire for an adolescent girl, it became a hot topic even before its release. Partially, this was because it was directed by Jung Ji-woo, who also worked on Happy End (1999), but primarily it was because it frankly deals with the taboo subject of the Lolita complex. This was bold, even for a culture industry with diversifying [but generally] slowly opening views towards the notion of sexual desire towards adolescent girls, and it titillated the public by breaking that taboo (source, right).

하지만 이러한 대중들의 반응을 단순히 이 영화의 ‘금기를 깨는 발칙함’때문이라고 보기엔 뭔가 부족하다. 일반적으로 대중 상업영화 속에서 성에 대한 주제, 특히 이번 은교의 경우처럼 사회적으로 금기시 되는 성적 주제를 다루는 영화의 경우 언제나 개봉과 함께 여러 곳에서 그 윤리성으로 인해 비판의 목소리가 높아져왔다. 하지만 이번처럼 가장 직접적으로 금기시된 이러한 성을 다룬 영화에서 조차 비판의 목소리는 예전처럼 높지 않다. 또한 요 근래 여러 가지 아동성폭행사건으로 인해 대중들의 의식이 높아진 상태에서도 이러한 영화에 대한 우려 섞인 목소리조차 나오지 않고 있다는 점은 매우 주목할 만한 것이다. 비록 작은 하나의 예이지만 이러한 대중들의 반응은 우리 사회에서 성 개방풍조와 함께 “성이 윤리를 수반하는 문제”라는 사실이 점점 희석되고 있는 모습을 반영하고 있는 것이다.

However, the simple breaking of taboos is not enough to account for the public reaction. Generally, whenever films with sexual themes are released, and especially cases like Eun-gyo in which taboos are broken, many ethical concerns and criticisms are raised. However, despite this movie breaking a stronger taboo than most, and despite the heightened public awareness and concern about the sexual abuse of children in recent years, the criticism of the movie has been muted compared to past cases. This reflects Korean society’s sexual liberalization, increasingly fluid sexual ethics, and diminishing sense of sexual responsibility.

이러한 양상은 특히 대중가요, 그 중에서도 2000년대 후반부터 시작된 걸 그룹 열풍에서 가장 두드러진다. 아직 중, 고등학생 티를 채 벗지도 못한 청소년이 무대 위에 올라가 짧은 바지를 입고 춤을 추고 노래하는 모습은 더 이상 낯선 장면이 아니다. 소속사들은 데뷔와 함께 멤버들이 ‘미성년’임을 강조하는 보도를 연신 내보내며 ‘나이 어린’ 걸 그룹을 적극 홍보한다. 대중들도 이런 모습에 더 이상 주저하거나 꺼리지 않는다. 이러한 아이돌에 대해 대중과 언론은 “섹시하다”라는 표현을 서슴지 않는다. 도발적인 춤을 추고 ‘오빠’라고 외치는 걸 그룹에 대해 대중들은 환호하고 열광한다. 우리나라의 모든 걸그룹이 롤리타 신드롬에 기반을 두고 있다는 것은 비약이겠지만 지금 현 대중 걸 그룹계에서는 최소한 ‘미성년’의 코드는 절대적이며 또한 이러한 코드가 단순히 어린 아이에 대한 ‘귀여움’에 그치지 않는다는 것은 부인하기 힘들다.

This aspect is also noticeable in popular songs, especially since the girl-group wave began in the late-2000s. Seeing high school students dancing on stage dressing in very short pants is no longer unusual. As soon as management companies debut a new girl-group they send out press releases emphasizing the members’ young ages, and the public doesn’t seem to mind. [Indeed], the public and media do not hesitate to describe them as “sexy,” and cheer them for doing provocative dances and shouting “Oppa.” Certainly, not all Korean girl-groups excessively rely on the Lolita syndrome, but its use is widespread, and it is hard to deny that this “underage code” is simply about cuteness.

이러한 대중 문화속의 롤리타 콤플렉스에 관한 논문은 이전에도 이번이 처음이 아니다. 하지만 기존까지의 원더걸스나 문근영을 중심으로 한 롤리타 콤플렉스에 관한 논의의 경우, 노래나 작품 중심의 해석에 초점을 맞추어 암묵적으로 제시되는 롤리타 성상품화의 조짐에 주목하는 정도에 그치는 한계가 있었다. 이 논문에서는 기존의 논문들에서 더 나아가 노래와 춤에 대한 해석과 더불어 그룹의 변화 양상과 연예활동을 통해서도 드러나는 미성년에 대한 성애를 자극하는 요소들, 또한 그것을 이용하는 연예기획사들의 성 상품화의 전략을 살펴보는 것을 목표로 하여 구체적인 예를 통해 접근할 것이다. 이러한 구체적인 예로 걸 그룹 중 아동성애적 요소가 두드러지는 걸스데이를 설정하였으며 특히 걸스데이의 대표곡 ‘반짝반짝’, ‘한번만 안아줘’ 와 그 뮤직비디오, 그 외기타 연예활동을 통해 어떻게 이러한 방식의 성 상품화가 드러나고 있는지 살펴볼 것이다.

What I will discuss today is not the first time the Lolita complex has been seen in popular culture. However, in discussions of it in relation to The Wondergirls or [former "the nation's little sister"] Moon Geun-young, there have been implicit limits in previous analyses of noticeable Lolita-related sexual objectification in their songs and other cultural products. Unlike those, in this post I will not only analyze the songs and dances of the girl-group Girl’s Day, I will also look into the group’s different concepts and show how they encourage sexual interest in underage girls, providing concrete examples to demonstrate their management company’s sexual objectification strategy. I will give particular attention to the music videos to Twinkle Twinkle and Hug Me Once.

(Moon Geun-young in My Little Bride, 2004. Source)

또한 이 논문의 후반부에서는 아도르노의 문화산업론을 기반으로 하여 이러한 걸그룹의 문제점에 비판적으로 고찰해볼 것이다. 앞으로 살펴볼 걸스데이의 예에서 드러나는 바와 같이 걸그룹 시장의 양상은 획일화와 배타적인 시장체계, 단순 소비를 위한 제작등과 같이 아도르노가 주장한 대중문화의 특성과 많은 부분에서 일치한다. 그렇기에 롤리타 콤플렉스의 문제와 더불어 그것을 상품화하는 문화산업의 작용이 구체적으로 어떻게 드러나는지 아도르노의 관점을 기반으로 살펴보고, 마지막으로 현대 대중 걸 그룹문화의 롤리토크라시 문제점을 제시함으로 논문을 정리할 것이다.

Later, I will give a critical analysis of the problems and issues raised by girl-groups based on Theodor Adorno’s theories of popular music and the culture industry. As we will see, the example of Girl’s Day demonstrates the commonalities between the present day girl-group market and features or traits of popular culture that were argued by Adorno, including standardization, an exclusive market system, and production only for simple consumption. Accordingly, I will address the problems of the Lolita complex and look in detail into how the culture industries objectify that, based on Adorno’s views. Finally, I will summarize the post by outlining the problems of today’s girl-group culture’s lolitocracy (source, right).

2. 본론 / Body

 (1)걸스데이와 롤리타 신드롬 / Girl’s Day and the Lolita Syndrome

먼저 걸스데이에 대해 간단히 알아보자. 5인조 여성그룹인 걸스데이는 2010년 당시 이미 포화상태에 이른 걸 그룹 시장의 후발주자로 출발하였음에도 유튜브와 기타 소셜미디어를 통해 대중들의 주목을 받으며 비교적 순탄한 데뷔를 하게 된다. 하지만 얼마 지나지 않아 붉어져 나온 가창력 논란과 더불어 5명의 멤버 중 2명의 멤버의 급작스러운 탈퇴는 걸스데이를 시작부터 위태롭게 한다. 하지만 이러한 악조건 속에서 걸스데이는 포기하지 않고 새로운 도전을 감행하게 되는데,  2009년 새로운 멤버 2명을 영입하고 새로운 음악적 양식으로 전환함에 따라 기존의 이미지를 쇄신하여 새롭게 대중들에게 다가서게 된다. 걸스데이는 새로운 멤버 교체 이후 두 번째 미니앨범 ‘반짝반짝’을 시작으로 ‘한번만 안아줘’, ‘너, 한눈 팔지 마’ 등 솔직한 가사와 친숙한 멜로디의 곡을 차례로 히트시키며 치열한 걸 그룹 시장에서 자신만의 입지를 확보하며 빠르게 성장하게 되고, 2011년 18회 한국문화예술시상에서 신인상을 수상하는 쾌거를 이루게 된다. 또한 걸스데이의 인기는 최근까지 계속되어, 2012년 4월 18일에 내놓은 정식 세 번째 앨범인 everyday2가 발매하는 동시에 주요 차트에서 상위권에 랭크되어 걸스데이의 인기가 한번의 쇼로 끝나지 않음을 증명해주고 있다.

First, let’s learn the basics about Girl’s Day. A late-runner, they arrived in September 2010 when the girl-group market was already saturated, but through the use of YouTube and other forms of social media their debut was moderately successful. However, not only was their singing ability soon called into question, but two members suddenly and unexpectedly withdrew, placing the future of the group in jeopardy.

So, they were quickly replaced, and Girl’s Day resolved to change their musical style and image and approach the public with a new face. Soon afterwards they released their second mini-album, and with their back-to-back hits Twinkle Twinkle, Hug Me Once, and Don’t Let Your Eyes Wander, which all featured honest lyrics and familiar melodies, they fully established themselves in the highly competitive girl-group market, winning Female Rookies of the Year at the November 2011 18th Republic of Korea Entertainment Arts Awards. Their popularity has continued in 2012, releasing their third mini-album Everyday2 on 18 April, and its high chart rankings prove Girl’s Day is no mere flash in the pan.

걸스데이가 이렇게 걸 그룹의 홍수와 여러 악조건 속에도 살아남을 수 있었던 데에는 물론 멤버교체와 걸스데이 각 멤버의 노력을 빼놓을 수 없겠지만 가장 지대한 영향을 끼친 것은 새 멤버교체 이후 두 번째 앨범인 ‘반짝반짝’의 히트라고 말할 수 있을 것이다. 2011년 3월 16일 쇼 케이스에서 컨셉 사진으로 먼저 공개된 이 앨범은 17일 엠넷 엠카운트 다운을 시작으로 이틀 후인 19일 벅스뮤직, 네이버 뮤직, 싸이월드 배경음악 실시간 차트에서 1위를 차지했으며, 그 외 멜론, 소리바다, 도시락 등에서도 10위권 내에 진입하는 기염을 토했다.  ‘반짝반짝’의 흥행 행진은 여기서 멈추지 않았다. ‘반짝반짝’은 이후에도 주요 지상파 방송차트에서 지속적으로 높은 순위로 랭크됨은 물론이고, 다음 앨범을 위해 활동을 중단한 후에도 노래음원이 주요 순위 체계에서 상위 10위권 안에 기록되는 등 빠른 속도로 변화하는 대중음악 시장에서 이례적인 모습을 보여주며 걸스데이를 주요 걸 그룹 반열위에 올려놓았다.

Of course, while Girl’s Day survived this perfect storm of a debut partially through the efforts and abilities of its members, the main reason was the wholly unexpected popularity of Twinkle Twinkle. Promotional concept pictures were first released on Showcase on March 16, 2011, then on the 17th it was made available for download on MNet MCountdown, then Musicbox, Naver Music, Cyworld Background Music Chart on the 19th. It reached number one on all of them, and made it to the top ten on Melon, Soribada, and Lunchbox. Later, of course it had a high ranking when it was performed on the major television music shows, and remained in the top ten in the charts despite Girl’s Day ceasing their promotions in order to prepare for their next album. This popularity was very atypical for a new group, and placed them among the elite girl-groups.

하지만 이러한 ‘반짝반짝’의 흥행 신화는 음악적인 양식을 완전히 버리고 ‘롤리타 신드롬’ 시장에 편입함으로써 가능한 것이었다. 걸스데이의 성공 요인인 ‘반짝반짝’은 기존의 걸스데이의 음악적 색과는 완전히 다른 롤리타적인 성애를 자극하는 장치들로 가득 차있는, 그당시 걸그룹 시장의 ‘어림’의 경쟁에 합류하기 위한 전환점이었다는 것이다.

That said, the big hit myth of Twinkle Twinkle was a complete reversal of their previous musical style, and was only possible because they decided to run with the Lolita syndrome concept, employing a number of devices to stimulate a Lolita-like sexual desire. The song marks a turning point in the groups’ attempts to [employ youth to compete in the girl-group market].

James: Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I recommend actually watching(!) the Twinkle Twinkle music video before continuing (the one above has English and Hangul subtitles). Also, make sure to check out reviews at McRoth’s Residence, KPop Reviews, and Yellow Slug Reviews (I’d appreciate any more recommendations), all of which emphasize an excessive use of aegyo and/or how much of a break it was from their previous work.

(2)걸스데이의 ‘반짝반짝’ / Girl’s Day’s Twinkle Twinkle

 우선 걸스데이의 성공의 시발점이 된 ‘반짝 반짝’이라는 작품을 살펴봄으로써 이러한 요소가 어떻게 드러나는지 살펴보자. 먼저 가사를 보면, 반짝반짝의 가사는 음악적인 반복되는 선율에 따라 A-B-C-A-B-D-B 형태로 이루어져 있다. 가사의 전체적인 내용은 ‘오빠’, 또는 ‘너’로 지칭되는 대상과의 사랑을 나누는 가사 속의 화자, 주체에 관한 내용으로 가사 전체는 ‘다가가고 싶지만 사랑의 아픔이 두려워 다가가는 것이 쉽지 않다’는 메시지가 주를 이루고 있으며 대상이 좋기는 하지만 어떤 이유인지 쉽게 다가가기 힘들다는 내용이 담겨져 있다.

Let’s look into what factors were responsible for the popularity of Twinkle Twinkle, the starting point of Girl’s Day’s success. First, if we look at the lyrics, they are very repetitive, following an A-B-C-A-B-D-B rhythm. Looking at them as a whole, the narrator often professes her love for someone referred to as “you,” or “Oppa,” but the song has the basic message that she wants to approach him, yet is scared of possible heartbreak, so it is not easy to do so. Or in other words, she likes the subject, but for some reason can’t act on it.

가사 속 중심적인 의미를 구성하는 이 ‘이유’는 가사 B 부분을 보면 알 수 있다. 가사 속의 화자는 ‘슬쩍슬쩍 바라보지마 .반짝반짝 내 입술 바라보지마. 좋아하는 우리사이 멀어질까봐. 멀어질까 두려워.’라는 가사를 통해 화자의 입술을 ‘훔쳐보는’ 대상으로 인해 화자와 대상과의 관계가 멀어질까 두렵다는 언급을 하고 있다. 즉, 노래 속 화자에게 사랑 속 힘든 이유는 대상이 화자의 입술을 바라보는 행위의 함의, 즉 육체적인 ‘스킨십’에 대한 부담감 내지는 거부감 때문으로 해석할 수 있으며 가사 속에서 이러한 대상에 대해 ‘사이가 멀어질지도 모른다’라고 경고하면서도 또 친밀한 관계를 유지하고자 하는 주체의 다소 모순되는 마음이 표현되고 있다.

If we look at the main, “B” part of the lyrics we can see the reason. Here, the narrator says to the subject, “Don’t peek at me. Don’t steal a glance at my twinkling (glistening) lips. I’m afraid that if we fall in love, we may end up driving each other apart.” Or alternatively, the reason falling in love is so difficult for the narrator is because if she does she would feel pressured to have a physical relationship with him before she is ready (so, something that may ultimately drive them apart), and this is manifested in her discomfort at him looking at her lips. On the other hand, the irony is that she actually does want a more romantic, more physical relationship with him.

(Source)

이러한 식의 가사는 다른 여타의 사랑 노래에서 충분히 발견할 수 있는 부분으로써 문제가 되지 않는다. 하지만 이 노래의 배경과 기타 요소들을 종합해 보면 그 내용이 단순한 성인 연인들의 사랑 노래만으로는 해석할 수 없음을 보게 된다.

This kind of love story can be found in many other songs, and it’s not a problem in itself. However, given the music video’s setting and other factors, it can’t be described as a simple love song between two adults.

‘반짝반짝’에서 걸스데이는 기존의 앨범에서 추구했던 이미지와 완전히 상반된 교복의상의 컨셉를 가지고 온다. 또한 뮤직비디오의 배경도 ‘girl’s day school’ 이라는 팻말이 보이는 학교건물을 연상시키는 무대로, 노래의 주체가 고등학생임을 강조하고 있다. 또한 가사의 대상이 ‘오빠’로 지칭되고 있으며 이 오빠로 지칭되는 인물이 뮤직비디오 상에서도 고등학생이 아닌 다소 노숙한 인물로 묘사된다는 점과 걸스데이의 2011년 기준 평균나이는 만 19.2세로, 80년대 생인 두 명의 멤버를 제외하면 모두 고등학생과 중학생이었다는 점과 ‘반짝반짝’ 활동 당시 언론을 통해 ‘어린 청소년’의 컨셉을 중심으로 활동을 했다는 사실을 종합해 볼 때 노래 전체 가사는 미성년과 성인 사이의 사랑에 대해서 다루고 있음을 짐작할 수 있으며 가사 B에 해당하는 부분을 연인들 사이의 다툼으로 보기 어렵게 만든다.

With Twinkle Twinkle, Girl’s Day completely move away from their previous image of being the objects of desire, to a schoolgirl concept instead. In the music video, there is a stage a building reminiscent of a school, and “Girl’s Day School” can be seen written on a noticeboard in the background; the song emphasizes that the narrator is a high school student. The Oppa she calls and refers to, however, is not a high school student but much more mature and experienced. Add that the average age of the Girl’s Day members at the time the song came out was 19.2; that, but for two members born in the ’80s, three were of high school or middle-school age [James -- Middle school is a bit of a stretch, as the three youngest members were nearly 18, nearly 19, and 19 when the song came out; Korean children attend high school from roughly 16 to 18, although 17-19 is certainly possible]; and that they promoted themselves in the media and on shows and so on through a “youthful adolescent” concept, then we can infer that the whole song is about love between an adult and a minor, and that the “B” section of the lyrics are not some ordinary lovers’ lament or spat.

가사 속에서 가사 B의 내용은 가사의 배경과 함께 이전 원더걸스에 관련한 롤리타 콤플렉스에 관한 논평에서와 언급된 것처럼 성적인 대상으로써의 미성년의 존재를 상기시키는 역할을 하고 있다.

The “B” section of the lyrics, combined with the setting of the music video, reminds us of the existence of underage girls being used as a sex object, as was mentioned in previous discussions [James -- I think posts on his blog] about the the Wonder Girls and the Lolita complex.

(Source)

입술을 훔쳐보는 노래 속의 대상은 육체적인 욕망을 추구함으로써 가사 속 화자에게 ‘싫어질지 모른다’라는 협박을 받으면서도 반대로 노래 내의 화자에게 여전히 매력적인 존재로 묘사된다. 이러한 존재는 가사 속에서 미성년 성애에 대한 사회 문화적인 억압기제(예컨대 대중적인 의식과 법적인 제제)에 대한 부담감을 그저 ‘연애에서 일어날 수 있는 사소한 다툼, 기호의 차이’등으로 치환함으로써 타부(taboo)시 되었던 미성년 성애로부터 생기는 죄책감과 부담감들을 완화시키는 것이다. 가사 속 대상은 화자에게 법적인 처벌에 대한 위협을 받지 않는다. 그저 연애에서 발생할 수 있는 사소한 문제인 것처럼 화자는 ‘애교 섞인’ 투정을 부리고 있다. 이러한 식의 치환은 성인 감상자가 느끼게 될 이러한 죄책감의 존재를 허상이라고 인식시키게 되고 감상자로 하여금 심리적인 안정을 구현하며 미성년을 성애의 대상으로써의 추구하는 것을 자연스럽게 받아들이도록 한다.

The Oppa acts on his physical desire by peeking glances at her lips, and even though she warns him not to because of what a romantic relationship may bring, she still describes him as attractive. His existence in the song overcomes society’s cultural taboos and legal restraints against relationships with minors by portraying events as just a typical, trivial tiff between two people in a budding romantic relationship. There is never any mention or notion of him receiving some form of legal punishment. Also, the narrator trivializes it by just reacting with aegyo. This substitution helps adult admirers to dispel any guilt they may have about the pursuing of minors, and to rationalize it as natural.

또한 대상의 사랑을 원하면서도 또한 부끄러움 내지는 소극적인 태도를 취하고 있는 가사 속 주체는 유행하고 있는 미성년의 상품적 이미지, 즉 “가시적으로 드러나는 귀여움”, “풋풋한 여동생들이 단체로 발산하는 ‘대놓고 드러내지 않는 쎅시함’” 을 겨냥한 것으로 직접적인 Sex appeal이 아닌 ‘한 발 물러서는’ 어설픈 어필로 롤리타에 대한 남성 대중의 무의식적 욕망을 자극하는 것이고 볼 수 있다.

The narrator, who wants the Oppa’s love but is embarrassed and adopts a passive attitude in the lyrics, also uses an image that sexually objectifies minors, which is common among girl-groups at the moment; in other words, cuteness combined with an obviously exploited but unspoken sex-appeal. This faux modesty stimulates men’s unconscious desires for Lolitas.

<그림1> 걸스데이의 ‘반짝반짝’ 컴셉사진. 다양한 방식으로 변형된 교복이 그 당시 앨범컨셉이었다.기본적인 형태에서 벗 어나 섹슈얼리티를 강조하기 위한 변형들이 눈에 띈다. (사진출처: “걸스데이 반짝반짝”, 구글) Caption 1: Girl’s Day Twinkle Twinkle photo, demonstrating the altered, more sexualized school uniforms concept (source).

이러한 롤리타 콤플렉스를 겨냥한 장치들은 가사 이외의 다른 부분에서도 예외가 아니다. 앞에서 언급한 바와 같이 의상이나 무대 면에서도 이러한 아동성애적인 요소를 공략한 부분이 잘 드러난다. ‘반짝반짝’에서 나오는 교복 컨셉의 의상은 여학생 교복이라는 기본적인 형식을 취하지만 다양한 변형을 통해 섹슈얼리티를 강조하고 있다. ‘반짝반짝’에서 멤버들의 의상을 살펴보면 교복의 전형적인 모양을 본뜨되 상의의 아랫부분을 잘라 맨살을 드러낸다든지, 치마를 줄이거나 핫팬츠 형태로 축소시켜 신체 부위를 과도하게 노출시키고 있으며 몸에 달라붙는 옷으로 몸의 실루엣을 강조함으로써 멤버들의 여성성을 높이는 역할을 하고 있다. 이런 식의 변형된 교복은 학생, 미성년의 상징인 ‘교복’의 이미지를 섹슈얼리티의 일환으로 바라볼 수 있게 하는 시선을 제시함으로써 그전까지 존재하던 터부(taboo)를 깨 남성대중에 존재하는 소녀에 대한 성애적인 욕망을 자극하고 앞에서 언급한 바와 같이 가사를 통해 ‘죄책감의 기제’를 약화시킴으로써 감상자로 하여금 이러한 롤리타적인 욕망을 죄책감 없이 소비하도록 끌어들인다.

This use of the Lolita complex is not only found in the lyrics. As mentioned earlier, it is shown in the music video’s school setting and the performers’ school uniform concept, the latter of which emphasizes sexuality through various means. For example, the tops [of two members] are cropped to reveal their navels, their skirt lengths are raised so high as to resemble hot pants, and they’re skin-tight to better emphasize their feminine silhouettes. With uniforms being such symbols of underage students, this provides a means of sexualizing the clothes. In doing so, it breaks taboos towards and stimulates men’s sexual desire towards minors. As mentioned earlier, it weakens the sense of guilt surrounding viewing and sexualized minors, and makes them into a product to be consumed.

(Source)

As always, I appreciate readers pointing out any errors in the translation (which I admit there may be more of than usual), and I’ll try to have Parts 2 and 3 ready on Monday the 30th and the 6th respectively. Until then, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and I hope you all like the return to the old blog theme!

Related Posts:

• Consent is Sexy, Part 3: Female President by Girl’s Day #FAIL

• Reading the Lolita Effect in South Korea, Part 2: The role of K-pop and the Korean media in sexual socialization and the formation of body image

• Ajosshis & Girls’ Generation: The Panic Interface of Korean Sexuality

• What did Depraved Oppas do to Girls’ Generation? Part 1

• “Cleavage out, Legs in” — The Key to Understanding Ajosshi Fandom?

• The Origins of “Ajosshi Fandom”?

(Source)

Frankly, all too many things come to mind when I see this picture of Girl’s Day from late-2010…but “Lolitas” isn’t one of them. Even if Haeri, second from left, did happen to be 16 at the time. Minah in the center, 17.

Fast-forward to March 2011 though, and the black leather, guitars, and bar setting of Nothing Lasts Forever would be ditched for uniforms and classrooms in Twinkle Twinkle, the sass for aegyo and pining after Oppa. By July, Girl’s Day would appear in the sickly-sweet Hug Me Once too, K-pop’s first music video to have a dating sim version.

Following on from Part 1, Part 2 of this blogger’s post is a very convincing account of this transformation over 2011, and makes you wonder how many fans they lost as a result (or, more cynically, how many more they gained). Also it takes little persuading to believe that many dating sims involve male characters selecting from a variety of youthful, even underage girls, and that it’s very telling that Girl’s Day would choose to replicate one.

But really, it was their (now former) management company Dream T Entertainment that made the decision, so one criticism of the blogger is that he makes no distinction between the company and the group, despite members’ autonomy and consent being crucial for determining if they’re being sexually objectified or not (however, a dating ban and working conditions like these leave little doubt that they were indeed objectified). Another is his use of sweeping, take-his-word-for-it generalizations about lolicon and its popularity with otaku, which I’d wager readers familiar with Japanese popular culture will take issue with. Added to his sloppy, undefined, and interchangeable use of the terms “Lolita complex,” “Lolita syndrome” and the very rare “Lolitocracy” in Part 1, doing the same with a fourth Lolita-related term needlessly detracts from his arguments (source, right: author’s scan).

It was hypocritical of me to complain about a lack of definitions in Part 1 though, without providing my own. So, let me end this commentary here by offering what I took “The Lolita Effect” (which I think covers all the blogger’s related terms) to mean back at about the same time Dream T Entertainment decided to put it in action with Girl’s Day, based on my reading of the book of the same name by Meenakshi Durham:

…In short, it is the natural consequence of various industries’ (fashion, cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, diet-related, food, and so on) need to build, expand, and maintain markets for their products, which obviously they would do best by — with their symbiotic relationship with the media through advertising — creating the impression that one’s appearance and/or ability to perform for the male gaze is the most important criteria that one should be judged on. And the younger that girls learn that lesson and consume their products, the better.

Update 1 — Three things I should also mention:

1) Despite everything I’ve written about Girl’s Day, I’m hardly a hater, and I confess Female President is *cough* a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine, especially *ahem* that move at 0:51 in their performances (not so much in the MV though — their garish costumes put me off):

2) While they’re certainly sexually objectified in Female President, and likely will continue to be for their new mini-album to be released next week, it’s difficult to describe them as being portrayed as Lolitas now either. So, it appears further changes to their “concept” were made after the blogger wrote in August 2012, and I’ll investigate for a future post (can any fans provide any pointers?).

3) All that said, Nothing Lasts Forever just ROCKS (pun not intended), and is the only song of theirs I have on my MP3 player. If you haven’t heard it yourself, stop what you’re doing right now…then share my lament for Girl’s Day’s missed opportunity to stand out from most other girl-groups (and empathize with female indie groups that have to grapple with the same dilemma):

Update 2: For what it’s worth, leader and lead-vocalist So-jin recently expressed her discomfort with the group’s “cute concept.”

Taking up the translation directly where Part 1 leaves off:

(3) 걸스데이의 ‘MAXIM’ 화보 촬영 / Girl’s Day’s MAXIM Photoshoot

걸스데이의 성 상품화 방식은 반짝반짝 이후노래 뿐 아니라 다른 영역으로까지 확대된다. 그 중 대표적인 것이 걸스데이의 MAXIM화보촬영인데, 이러한 움직임은 걸스데이의 그룹전략이 성상품화 방식으로 흐르고 있다는 것을 극명하게 보여주는 사례가 된다. 걸스데이는 2011년 3월 반짝반짝 발매로 흥행을 거두고 있는 상태에서 걸 그룹 중 이례적으로 맥심(Maxim) 이라는 성인잡지에 모델로 출연하게 된다.

In addition to Twinkle Twinkle, Girl’s Day utilized a strategy of sexual objectification in many ways since. Out of these, their photoshoot for Maxim was both the most typical and most strongly demonstrated their shift in concept. They were chosen over other girl groups on the basis of the exceptional success of Twinkle Twinkle released in March.

맥심은 전형적인 성인 남성 잡지로 노출 수위가 높은 사진과 선정적인 내용을 담고 있는 잡지이다. 상반신이나 하반신을 의도적으로 노출시키는 포르노성 화보 뿐 아니라 특정 부분에서는 여성의 전라(全裸)의 신체가 노출되는 화보도 게재되고 있으며 그 내용도 선정적인 것이 많을 뿐더러 직접적인 성관계를 다루는 부분도 잡지 안에 상당부분 존재한다.

(Sources: left, right)

Maxim is a typical adult men’s magazine with an emphasis on pictures and sexual content. It doesn’t just have pornographic pictures with people’s upper or lower bodies willfully exposed, but publishes pictures of completely nude females and its contents deal mostly with lewd topics or are directly about sexual relationships. [James -- I haven't seen a copy in five years, but describing it as something akin to Playboy is a bit of an exaggeration surely? Either way, see here for pictures of the Girl's Day shoot]

이러한 성인잡지에 10대 걸 그룹이 화보의 모델로 출연한다는 것은 사회적으로도 문제가 되는 일이었음에도 불구하고 걸스데이는 화보촬영을 감행한다. 2011년 5월호 maxim 속 공개된 걸스데이의 화보는 흰색 셔츠에 짧은 바지를 입어 ‘바지가 없는 듯한’ 설정의 컨셉, 소위 ‘하의실종패션’이라는 컨셉과 더불어 상반신 노출이 심한 의상과 선정적인 자세로 잡지에 실리었다. 그 당시 미성년자인 멤버가 둘(방민아, 이해리)이 있었음에도 불구하고 진행된 이 화보촬영은 성인문화의 중심인 성인잡지에 미성년자를 놓음으로써 롤리타 콤플렉스를 이용한 ‘미성년의 성’을 상품화한 극단적인 예라고 볼 수 있으며, 성 개방 풍조에 편승하여 ‘미성년의 성’을 상품으로 공략했다는 점에서 그전까지 노래에서 암시적으로 제시된 성 상품화 전략이 노골적으로 드러나는 부분이라고 볼 수 있을 것이다.

Although problematic, teenage members of Girl’s Day were included in the photoshoot for the May 2011 edition. Members dressed in white shirts and very short pants in a “disappearing pants” concept, which also excessively exposed their upper bodies and placed them in sexually suggestive poses. Using two underage members — Minah (17 years 11 months at the time of release; see above image), Haeri (16 years 10 months; above-right {source}) — in a photoshoot as the focus of an adult magazine is an extreme example of the Lolita complex, and shows that Girl’s Day were blatantly using it as a marketing strategy, rather than just hinting at it previously in songs and music videos.

Update 3: I forgot to mention that despite laws against it, Korean authorities have long turned a blind eye to sexualized images of minors in the media. Consider what I wrote about the marketing of Samaria/Samaritan Girl (2004) back in 2009:

Consider the two promotional posters above from 2004, featuring Kwak Ji-min (곽지민) and Han Yeo-reum (한려름) respectively. Never mind that Kwak is topless, and as a minor when the picture was taken, meant that it was technically illegal; as this case with a 14 year-old in January and this case with an 18 year-old earlier this month demonstrate, the Korean authorities still seem strangely reluctant to prosecute this sort of thing. Rather, the point is that far from discouraging one from having sex with minors, both posters seem to be positively encouraging it.

Continuing:

(4) ‘반짝반짝’ 이전 작품과의 비교 / Comparing Twinkle Twinkle to Girl’s Day’s Previous Works

이러한 걸스데이의 성 상품화 전략은 2011년 3월 ‘반짝반짝’이 나오기 전까지의 음악적 색깔과 ‘반짝반짝’이후의 음악적 색이나 성향이 어떻게 달라졌는지를 살펴보면 그 의도를 더욱 명확히 확인할 수 있다. 걸스데이의 초기 형태는 지금과 같지 않았다. 초기 활동 당시 여성 락 밴드를 표방하여 시작한 걸스데이는 새로운 멤버 교체 이후 ‘잘해줘봐야’라는 밴드 락 중심의 음반으로 활동하고 있었다. 가사의 내용 또한 제목에서 알 수 있듯이 반짝반짝과 이후 노래에서 볼 수 있는 풋풋한 사랑에 대해 다룬 것과 상반되게 배신과 복수를 다루고 있으며 강력한 비트와 단조 중심의 선율로 무거우면서도 강렬한 여성 락 그룹의 이미지를 보여주고 있었다. 멤버들의 의상 또한 강한 느낌의 노래와 어울리는 검은색 가죽옷과 팜므파탈적인 소품이 주를 이루었으며 클럽과 밴드 무대를 배경으로 한 뮤직비디오에서도 각 멤버는 있는 힘껏 드럼과 기타를 치거나 수화기를 세차게 던지거나 망치로 특정 대상을 치는 등 다소 과격하고 강한 느낌을 연출하고 있다.

If you compare Girl’s Day’s style of music before and after Twinkle Twinkle, their new sexual objectification strategy is clear. They are now very different to when they started. At the beginning, after the sudden membership changes, they emerged as a girl rock group with their song Nothing Lasts Forever. Rather than Twinkle Twinkle, which was about a new love, this song’s title and contents were about betrayal and revenge, with a rhythm in minor chords. The music video set in a bar with a stage in the background, the members give off a strong femme fatale vibe with their black leather clothes, their powerful working of guitars and drums, and hitting of hammers [James -- inflatable hammers that is, but point taken about the very different vibe!] and violent throwing of phone receivers.

하지만 이러한 ‘잘해줘봐야’의 컨셉은 당시 걸 그룹의 기본적인 형태와는 상이한 것이었다. 그 당시 소녀시대와 원더걸스를 중심으로 ‘어리다’는 컨셉 하에 수많은 그룹들이 ‘어느 그룹에 평균연령이 더 어린가?’, ‘어느 그룹에 더 어린 멤버가 있는가?’로 경쟁하며 어리면서도 은근하게 성적으로 어필하는 능력이 인기 있는 걸 그룹으로 평가되는 시기였다.

However, at the same time that they had this concept, the standard for girl groups was very different. Centered around the Wondergirls and Girls’ Generation, they competed against each other and were judged on the basis of their youth (Which group had the youngest average age of members? Which group had the youngest member?), with an implicit sexual appeal on that basis.

기존에 존재하던 자기만의 음악적 색을 띠는 가수들은 브라운관 너머로 사라지고 ‘어림’과 ‘섹시함’이라는 다소 모순적인 가치를 얼마나 훌륭하게 배합한 걸 그룹들이 가요계를 점령하고 있었다. 이러한 상황에서 다소 성숙하고 반항적인 이미지의 걸스데이의 초기 컨셉은 이러한 흐름과는 상이한 매우 ‘이질적인’ 컨셉이었다.

In this environment, girl-groups with different styles soon disappeared from the airwaves, while those that focused on the (actually contradictory) combination of youth and sexiness soared ahead. Unfortunately, Girl’s Day’s original concept directly defied this trend.

하지만 이러한 이질성은 결코 강점이 되지 못했다. 문화산업의 시스템은 너무나도 확연하게 획일화를 요구하고 있었고 그 획일화에 순응하지 않는 그룹은 경제적인 무능력자가 되어 사라질 수밖에 없었다. 이러한 상태에서 걸스데이는 결국 데뷔 초기의 그룹 컨셉을 완전히 버리고 걸 그룹 문화의 거대한 양식의 흐름 편승할 수밖에 없었고, ‘반짝반짝’에서 완전히 새로운 컨셉으로 재탄생되게 된다. 거친 느낌의 가죽 자켓은 교복으로 바뀌었고 노래의 분위기는 천진하고 가볍게 변했다. 가사는 더 이상 반항을 말하지 않으며 순종적이고 연약한 소녀의 모습만을 그리게 된다. 이러한 이미지 변신을 시작으로 걸스데이는 안정적인 팬층을 확보하며 걸그룹시장내에 견고한 입지를 굳히게 된다.

This difference couldn’t be sustained. The culture industries demanded standardization, and groups that couldn’t adapt ultimately disappeared. Because of this situation, Girl’s Day had to completely do away with the concept they debuted with and join the girl-group bandwagon, coming up with the completely new concept of Twinkle Twinkle. The leather jackets were done away with in favor of school uniforms, the atmosphere now one of light naivete. The lyrics were no longer about rebellion, but stressed being meek, obedient, weak and frail girls. This image change helped give them a secure fanbase and cemented their entrance in the girl-group market.

이러한 걸스데이의 음악적 양상의 변화에 따른 인기의 변화는 ‘어린 이미지’가 걸 그룹 문화에서 얼마나 핵심적인 요소로써 작용하고 있는가를 잘 보여주는 것이다. 비록 멤버들 중 어린 멤버가 있다고 할지라도 그 멤버가 성적 어필을 하지 않는 컨셉인 ‘잘해줘봐야’같은 노래는 대중들의 관심을 끌 수 없다. ‘반짝반짝’처럼 ‘미성년의 성’을 직접적으로 다루고 언급하는 노래만이 대중 걸 그룹 문화에서 살아남을 수 있다. 위에서 살펴본 이러한 면들은 걸 그룹에 팬들이 반응하는 이유가 그들의 ‘미성숙한 성’에 있는 것이라는 사실을 보여주며 이것이 현 걸그룹 문화의 거대한 흐름이라는 사실을 잘 보여주고 있다.

This [successful] change by Girl’s Day demonstrates that a girl-groups must have a youthful image at their core in order to survive. Also, despite having adolescent members in their group, the lack of sex appeal in Nothing Lasts Forever [James -- I beg to differ; he means a Lolita-like sex appeal] meant that it went unnoticed by the media — only songs like Twinkle Twinkle that directly refer to or take advantage of teenage sexuality will gain attention. They are also the only kinds of songs that get a reaction from fans, and, combined, demonstrate how strong this trend is.

(Sources: top, middle, bottom)

<사진 2> 위 두 사진은 걸스데이의 반짝반짝 이전과 이후 스타일이 얼마나 크게 변화했는지 보여준다. 맨 왼쪽 사진은 ‘잘해줘봐야’ 활동 당시 모습으로 락 밴드 느낌의 강하고 터프한 이미지로 활동했음을 잘 보여준다. 중앙 사진은 ‘반짝반짝’의 컨셉사진으로 ‘girl’s day school’이란 마크와 교복을 변형한 형태를 통해 그룹 멤버의 ‘어린’ 이미지를 강조한 모습한다. 두 컨셉의 변화는 롤리토크라시의 양상으로의 변화가 잘 드러난다.. 세 번째 사진은 ‘한번만 안아줘’의 컨셉사진으로 하얀 드레스와 순백의 배경으로 ‘잘해줘봐야’와 완전히 상반되는 ‘여성성’을 강조하는 컵셉을 기반으로 하고 있다. 걸스데이는 ‘반짝반짝’의 흥행성공으로 걸스데이는 완전히 방향을 전환하여 기존 컨셉을 버리고 ‘어린 이미지’와 ‘미성년의 여성성’을 강조하는 이미지로 탈바꿈하였다. (사진출처: “걸스데이”, 구글)

Caption: These three pictures show the evolution in Girl’s Day’s style. In the first from Nothing Lasts Forever, they give off the image of a strong, tough, rock band. In the middle, a concept photo for Twinkle Twinkle, the new emphasis on members’ youth with the “Girl’s Day School” banner and school uniforms can be seen. Finally, with Hug Me Once, the complete transformation from Nothing Last Forever is evident, with a virgin-white background and dresses and an emphasis on women’s sexuality. Twinkle Twinkle was such a hit that Girl’s Day completely did away with their old image, and instead stressed a youthful image and adolescent girls’ sexuality.

(5) 걸스데이의 ‘한번만 안아줘’ / Girl’s Day’s Hug Me Once

이러한 양상은 이후 2011년 7월 ‘반짝반짝’ 이후 연이어 출시된《Everyday》의 타이틀곡 ‘한번만 안아줘’에서 완전히 고착화되었음을 보여준다. 제목에서부터 다소 자극적인 느낌의 이 곡은 걸스데이의 음악이 완전히 ‘잘해줘봐야’의 컵셉에서 ‘반짝반짝’의 컨셉(즉, 귀엽고 깜찍하지만 또 한편으로는 성적인 어필을 하는 컨셉)으로 전환되었음을 보여주는 곡이다. 이 곡에서는 이전 ‘반짝반짝’에서처럼 직접적인 미성년에 대한 암시, 즉 교복이나 학교 같은 컨셉은 취하고 있지 않지만 뮤직비디오와 가사에서 아동성애적인 장치를 충분히 보여주고 있다.

Girl’s Day’s adherence to this new concept in Twinkle Twinkle was confirmed in their follow-up song Hug Me Once, the title-track to their second mini-album everyday — from the title to the music, it clearly gives off the same feeling of cuteness and preciousness on the one hand, and sex appeal on the other. Although it lacks the school uniforms and school-like setting of Twinkle Twinkle, the music video and the lyrics still hint towards adolescent sexuality through a variety of devices.

이 곡에서 특히 뮤직비디오가 상당히 특징적이다. 최초로 시도된 3개의 개별화된 뮤직비디오는 공식 발표 3일전 세 개의 뮤직비디오를 암시하는 intro 티져 영상을 통해 공개되어 많은 사람의 주목을 받았다. 3개의 뮤직비디오는 ‘한번만 안아줘’라는 하나의 곡을 가지고 3가지 다른 타입, Dance ver, Game ver, MV로 이루어져 있다. 감상자는 DVD의 영상선택방식을 이용하여 화면을 마우스로 클릭하여 다른 모드의 뮤직비디오를 시청할 수 있다. 이러한 뮤직비디오 방식은 이전까지 전무했던 뮤직비디오 양식이었다는 점에서 언론에 많은 관심을 받았으며 매우 획기적이라는 평가를 받게 된다.

The music video was also groundbreaking, and gained a lot of attention in the media, as three days before the official release, a teaser video hinted that there would be three versions: a dance version, a game version, and a typical music video. Viewers would be able to select between them and within each via menus and clicking options like when using a DVD.

여기서 우리가 주목할 것은 세 개의 뮤직비디오 중 Game version이다. Game version은 3개로 뮤직비디오를 분할한 것만큼이나 매우 실험적이고 도전적이었는데, 그 이유는 뮤직비디오의 Game ver이 일본 애니메이션 산업에서 파생한 ‘연예시뮬레이션’ 게임의 양식을 따랐다는 점에서이다.

(Sources: top, bottom)

Out of the three, the game version was the most noticeable and challenging to make, as it derived from a “dating sim” [lit. "Lovers' simulation"] model used in the Japanese animation industry.

[연애 시뮬레이션 게임은 연애를 모방한 게임 장르의 하나로, 코나미에서 제작된 도키메키 메모리얼 시리즈에 근본을 두고 있다. 주로 주인공이 남성이고 연애 상대로 미소녀들이 등장하므로 미소녀 연애 시뮬레이션이라고도 한다. 대한민국에서는 이 말을 줄여서 미연시라는 용어를 만들었는데, 이 용어는 원래 뜻을 넘어서 미소녀 게임을 총칭하는 말로 쓰이고 있다. 이러한 연예시뮬레이션게임은 일본의 만화, 애니메이션 문화와 함께 발달하여 1차원적 감상에서 벗어나 만화 캐릭터와 실제로 상호작용 함으로써 “세계와 삶에 대한 종합적 체험을 갖는 것이 이제 불가능한 상태에서 오직 시각적인 체험의 형식”으로 경험이 가능한 오타쿠 문화에 주체의 의식을 반영할 가능성을 제시한  산업이다. [(김홍중, 심보선, 실재에의 열정에 대한 열정,한국문화사회학회, 문화와 사회, 제4권 2008.5, pp.114-146 )]

The dating sim genre is derived from the Tokimeki Memorial series by Konami. In them, the subject is usually male, the object of his affections female, and often underage; in Korea the name for such games has been shortened to mi-yeon-shi, and has come to encapsulate all games involving underage characters. Building upon Japanese comics, animation books, and the otaku culture industry it goes beyond passive viewing to an interactive experience with the characters, “giving a more holistic, lifelike experience, which changes the impossible to a visual form” [James -- Apologies, but I found the second half of this paragraph exceptionally difficult; this is my best guess]. (Kim Hong-joong and Shin Bo-seon, “The Passion of the Passion of the Real: The Poetry and Poetics of Miraepa,” Culture and Society, The Korean Association for the Sociology of Culture, Volume 4, May 2008, pp. 114-146.)

Game ver 뮤직비디오는 잠에서 깨어난 1인칭 시점의 화자가 걸스데이 멤버 한명 한명과 여러 장소를 이동하며 데이트를 한다는 내용으로 구성되어 있다. 뮤직비디오는 시작부터 ‘insert coin’이라든지 게임등급표시 등의 표시를 넣어 게임임을 강조하는데 뮤직비디오 전 프레임에 ‘연예시뮬레이션’게임에 사용되는 겉 테두리와 사각형의 말 상자 그리고 새로운 캐릭터가 등장할 때마다 팝업(pop up)되는 간략한 신상소개 상자 등은 완전히 뮤직비디오의 내용을 연예시뮬레이션게임에서 차용했음을 보여주는 면이다. 뮤직비디오의 주인공, 1인칭 대상은 손과 발만 노출하여 각 멤버들과 손을 잡거나 함께 걷는 등의 모습을 보이는데 이것은 간접체험으로써의 한계를 극소화 시키려는 연예시뮬레이션의 ‘비매개’의 속성을 이용한 흔적이라고 볼 수 있을 것이다. 그리고 5명의 멤버와의 데이트가 끝나게 되면 화면이 바뀌면서 5명의 멤버중 한명을 고르라는 선택화면이 나오게 되는데 이러한 설정 또한 연예시뮬레이션의 요소를 그대로 가져왔다고 볼 수 있다. 이 마지막 화면은 또 5개의 개별엔딩으로 구성되어 있어 감상자의 선택에 따라 개별엔딩으로 연결된다.

The game version of the music video is told from a first-person perspective, in which the viewer goes on separate dates with each member of Girl’s Day in a variety of different locations. It uses many elements common to dating sims, including: the use of an “insert coin” text; a frame or border around the screen; pop-up speech bubbles with simple introductions to the members; and only having the subject’s hands and feet visible, making his presence indirect but also more realistic. Another borrowed element is having a screen with all five members appearing at the end, with different endings [to each date] appearing depending on which member is selected.

James — Compare the June 2009 Tell Me Your Wish by Girls’ Generation, the group most strongly associated with the Lolita effect in Korea:

여기서 주목할 점은 이 뮤직비디오의 양식을 단순히 재미있는 뮤직비디오 아이디어로 보기 힘들다는 점이다. 왜냐하면 뮤직비디오가 차용한 일본 연예시뮬레이션 게임이 오랜 시간동안 ‘롤리타 콤플렉스’의 해소처, 즉 로리콘 문화의 중심으로 간주되어왔다는 사실 때문이다.

It is difficult to dismiss the music video as simple fun, for the lovers’ animation genre it so heavily borrows from has long been considered the natural home of the Lolita complex, and a natural fit with lolicon comics.

James — Given that natural fit, I expected to find a great deal of academic sources that discussed both, but to my surprise didn’t find any at all. Can any readers fill in the gaps? Lacking any expertise myself, I’m wary of relying on media sources that tend to have a “The Crazy, Perverted Japanese” undercurrent to them, but on the other hand it’s true that I can’t think of many other countries where events like this would ever happen, even if foreign media outlets do exaggerate their popularity.

연예시뮬레이션게임은 주로 애니메이션에서만 등장하는 캐릭터를 게임화시킴으로써 사용자와 상호작용할 수 있게 한다는 것이 게임의 취지이다. 사용자는 캐릭터를 사용자의 주체적인 내러티브에 집어넣음으로써 캐릭터와의 개별적인 경험을 형성함으로써 현실에서 만날 수 없는 미소녀와 연애를 함으로써 대한 대리 만족을 경험하게 한다. 연애시뮬레이션 게임은 그렇기에 현실에서 접하기 힘든 어린 미소녀를 주 대상으로 삼아왔으며 일본 로리콘 문화에 핵심적인 산업으로 자리 잡게 된다.

The purpose of dating sims is for the viewers to interact with ‘gameized characters, and to give them independent narratives and experiences with them. The underage characters are a proxy for something they are unable to have in real life, and are why lovers’ animation games are at the core of the Japanese lolicon comics industry.

(“TV 아사히, 3차원 미소녀 아이돌 vs 2차원 미소녀 캐릭터? / TV Asahi, 3rd level underage idols vs. 2nd level underage characters?” — just some of the unfamiliar terminology I had struggle with here! Source)

그런 점에서 연예시뮬레이션게임의 모델을 뮤직비디오에 차용했다는 사실은 단순히 뮤직비디오의 재미를 위해 제작하였다고 보기는 힘들게 만든다. 연예시뮬레이션 게임이 로리콘 문화에서 2차원의 어린 캐릭터와 상호작용하기 위한 욕망을 기반으로 만들어졌다는 점을 기억할 때, 뮤직비디오의 제작자가 이러한 요소를 인지하지 못한 채 뮤직비디오를 만들었다고 보기는 힘들다. 결국 이러한 점을 종합해 보면 ‘한번만 안아줘’의 뮤직비디오는 로리콘 문화와 같은 방식으로 ‘미성년에 대한 성애적 욕망’에 호소하여 성을 상품화하는 전략이라고 볼 수 있으며, 또한 뮤직비디오를 통해 그러한 문화에 익숙한 대중들, 즉 로리콘 문화에 익숙한 소위, ‘오타쿠’들을 직접적인 소비자로 설정하여 성 상품화하려는 제작자의 의도가 드러난다고 볼 수 있다.

In that regard, it is difficult to describe it as a simple music video. Also, when you remember that dating sims and lolicon comics are produced to stimulate interaction with and sexual desire for fictional underage characters, it is difficult to believe that the producer was unaware of that. In the end, by using elements similar to those in lolicon comics in the music video for Hug Me Once, and calling for a sexual objectification strategy based on sexual desire for underage girls, it is apparent that this music video was produced for the direct consumption of those most familar with lolicon comics, the otaku.

이러한 뮤직비디오의 구성과 더불어 곡 자체에서도 앞선 ‘반짝반짝’에서처럼 미성년임에도 성적인 어필을 하는 많은 부분을 발견할 수 있다.

Along with these elements, Hug Me Once shares many with Twinkle Twinkle that are based on a sexual appeal of underage girls.

‘한번만 안아줘’의 가사는 A-B-C-A-B-C-A-D 형태로 ‘한번만 안아줘’라는 말이 반복적으로 A 부분과 D부분에서 사용되고 나머지 가사의 내용 전개는 B와 C를 중심으로 이루어진다. 가사 B의 부분에 ‘한번만 안아보면 내 맘을 알 텐데 뛰는 내 가슴은 여기 시계보다 더 빠른데’ 라는 부분은 앞선 ‘반짝반짝’의 예에서처럼 모순적인 감정의 미성년을 드러내어 단순히 부끄러움 때문에 표현하지 못하는 것일 뿐 “어린 소녀도 욕망의 주체”라는 사실을  표현함으로써 수용자에게 사회적 억제기제에 대한 정당화의 구실을 제공한다. 또한 이후 바로 이어지는 ‘한번만 안아줘’로 구성된 반복적인 부분은 조르는 듯 한 애교 섞인 말투이지만 또 이성 간에 스킨십을 적극적으로 바라는 욕망을 표현한다는 점에서 어린 이미지와 성적인 주체로써의 이미지를 혼합함으로써 롤리타적 욕망을 자극하는 모습을 보이고 있다.

The lyrics to Hug Me Once follow an A-B-C-A-B-C-A-D form, “Hug Me Once” repeated in the A and D parts and the remainder concentrated in the B and C parts. In the B part, they read “If you hug me once, you will know my feelings [desires], my heart is beating faster than a clock,” an ironic, contradictory combination of desire and embarrassment at and/or inability to act on it, which removes societal constraints on relationships with minors by encouraging the [adult, male] viewer to take the initiative. Also, the “Hug me Once” parts are said with such aegyo that the combination of opposite-sex skinship, and sexual and youthful images provided must be viewed as directly playing to a Lolita-like desire (source, right).

And that ends Part 2. Part 3, which I’ve left to an awesome, wonderful reader who generously offered to translate it, will be up next Monday. Until then, Happy New Year!

Related Posts:

• Consent is Sexy, Part 3: Female President by Girl’s Day #FAIL

• Korean Girl Rockers, Defying the Stereotypes

• Reading the Lolita Effect in South Korea, Part 2: The role of K-pop and the Korean media in sexual socialization and the formation of body image

• Ajosshis & Girls’ Generation: The Panic Interface of Korean Sexuality

• What did Depraved Oppas do to Girls’ Generation? Part 1

• “Cleavage out, Legs in” — The Key to Understanding Ajosshi Fandom?

• The Origins of “Ajosshi Fandom”?