Miscarriage at work?!

I went to check my email today on AOL (yes, I still have an AOL account from 3rd grade that I use), and there are always little "news" stories about interesting stories that happened today. Generally, they are not groundbreaking, but I usually read them because they are at the very lest entertaining. Just a few minutes ago, the headline article on aol.com was about a woman who Twittered her miscarriage in a board meeting. I obviously speak from a male perspective, but regardless on ones views on abortion and babies, most will agree that women generally take the issue of miscarriage pretty seriously, especially when it's happening to them. For this woman, it was almost a relief that she was losing her child. She Twittered, "I'm in a board meeting. Having a miscarriage. Thank goodness, because there's a f***-up 3-week hoop-jump to have an abortion in Wisconsin". Granted, religious groups were all over this and it gave a bad rep for pro-choice groups, but it still had relatively little impact on the overall happenings of September 30th, 2009.

We have been talking a lot about commodity fetishism lately in class, but we generally refer to tangible objects and products, but are our personal lives themselves becoming commodities? It's easy to forget where a Nike shoe came from and what went into producing it, but I'm afraid that it's becoming ever more easy to forget about someone's feelings and create a sensational Twitter post out of it. From politicians to Oprah to the average person, the idea that we can send out a message as a small piece of digital information for the world to share only contributes to its diminishing meaning. A diamond is only special because there are few of them. What will it take for our endless Twitters and facebook status updates to mean absolutely nothing to the rest of the world?

Chocolate, Valentine's Day, and Commodity Culture

Chapter 7 of “Practices of Looking” mentions Valentine’s Day in relation to chocolate as a commodity. Chocolate is very popular and largely desired by people, but has a history of inhumane conditions for workers on cocoa farms. Despite these problems being brought to the public’s attention and some protest, the overall obsession with chocolate products continued in light of its production, and it is therefore an example of commodity fetishism. The brief mention of the commoditization of chocolate during holidays, especially Valentine’s Day, caused me to wonder about Valentine’s Day itself. Unlike Thanksgiving, which celebrates the expression of thanks and gratitude, or Christmas, which celebrates the birth of Christ, (both of which have become extremely commodified holidays in themselves) no one really knows the basis for the celebration of Valentine’s Day. Valentine’s Day is named after St. Valentine, and the specific day began being associated with romantic love during the High Middle Ages.

Since then, I would argue that Valentine’s Day has grown as a result of hegemony and commodity culture. All corporations capitalize on the weeks prior to Valentine’s Day, showing their products in a romantic way, and enticing viewers to buy that specific item for their loved one. The commercials and ads that are displayed around this time are a direct result of the hegemony that powerful media sources can have over people in order to send them certain messages.

In this case, the message is that a person must buy flowers, cards, chocolate, jewelry, etc for their loved one. The value of most of the items is essentially nothing, and a lot of the Valentine’s Day items are only useless commodities, like big red teddy bears and heart shaped pillows. But, because we live in a commodity culture, we are made to feel like we are defined by what we have. Therefore, on Valentine’s Day, people are essentially defined by what they receive or if they have a loved one to celebrate with. A person who does not have a significant other is meant to feel left out of the whole event, even though most of the people celebrating the holiday have no idea why they need to go out and buy flowers on that particular day compared to any other. And, if a girl doesn’t have a boyfriend or such to celebrate with, girls tend to buy each other presents and go out together, to celebrate love for friends and each other. But still, they are buying into the holiday and buying what companies want them to.

After doing some research, I learned that in 2007, the expected total spending of Americans on Valentine’s Day was $16 billion dollars. The U.S. Greeting Card Association (apparently there is one of those) estimates that 1 billion Valentine’s Day cards are sent out each year on Valentine’s Day, coming second only to Christmas. And why? Because Hallmark took this holiday and ran with it, capitalizing on the power commodity culture the best that they could. No matter how you feel about Valentine’s Day, whether you love it or hate it, one of the main reasons you are celebrating your love is because corporate America wanted you to.

Banksy

Hey everyone~

This isn't my weekly blog post BUT I happened to stumble across this video of some of Banksy's most well known pieces and while I had THOUGHT that I didn't know much of his work, I was surprised to find that I did recognize a lot of them so I thought I'd share it with you all (especially because a lot of them definitely make a statement about consumerist culture)...hope you like it! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2EkIQWGlnU

A New BATCH of Disney Stars!

Before reading ahead, begin by watching this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZgXg_7kVI8

For those of you who are unaware of The Onion News videos, it is a fake news channel that parodies many elements of modern culture. In this case, they are presenting an inside look at the Disney Genetic Imagineering Compound, where Disney stars are genetically engineered and “grown”.

During our class discussion this week regarding the “commodification of image” and its prevalence in TV programs such as American Idol, I couldn’t help but be reminded of this video. Essentially, the entire video parodies this idea of “commodification” by literally portraying the actors as “products” to the point where they have model numbers and even experience “bugs”.

The faux doctor further exemplifies the idea of the actors being products when saying, “we use the same DNA structure for all of our stars, and then we tweak minor details”, such as hair color or skin tone. Basically, all these stars are identified as being cookie cutter replicas of eachother—each with the same abilities and just different looks to attract/identify with different viewers.

This postmodern notion that media simply reflects itself is further illustrated when the geneticist discusses how it doesn’t matter whether Disney wants to put them “behind the camera, or in a concert”. Essentially, talent has become a secondary necessity, whereas image is the priority—with sufficient image appeal, they can make non-singers singers. If we think about other “successful” entertainers, like Britney Spears for example, we see this same trend in action: though she is considered a pop singer she truly lacks talent in the vocal department and was only famous because of her physical attributes and the catchy songs that sound no different from other cookie cutter pop songs. Essentially, most everything—even people—are being commoditized. It is unfortunate because the cycle only seems to produce less talent and more of the same.

Tonight's Gonna Be a Good Night Right?

Unless you have been living under a rock, you have probably heard of Black Eye Peas' new hit song "I Gotta Feeling" recently. I don't listen to the radio or watch TV much, but I have somehow been exposed to this song. So from what I understand, this song is pretty big and loved by many people right now. But honestly, it is not ground-breaking material. The vocals are fine, in terms of hitting the notes correctly, but there is a lack of variety in notes and range. It is overly repetitive and lyrically uncreative.

But hey, there must be a reason why it is number one on Billboard's chart. The repetitiveness in a way assures us listeners that there is stability and structure in the song. Also the simple and easy lyrics ("Tonight's the night / Let's live it up / I got my money / I'm paid / Let's spend it up," "Let's do it / And do it," and "I feel stressed out / I wanna let it go") seems to resonate with most of the youth of our society. Everyone wants to have a good night right? And repeatedly singing "tonight's gonna be a good night" seems to convince us that it will happen. And for different people, "a good night" means different things, therefore the artists can grab the attention of all types of people. As much as it is a rather unoriginal song, it has somehow connected with our current culture's morals and lifestyle, so it has become a huge hit.

So did you check out the music video? To view the music video please click here.

This music video has a lot to say about what our values are today. Middle schoolers or possibly younger students watch these, yet there is so much vulgarity and sexual motions. It seems to be accepted in our culture to wear such skimpy clothing and use our bodies as sexual objects. In other words, one can analyze that the dominant hegemony of our society is all about being physically attractive and "doing it" often. That is what a fun night is, and this is how to have a good party. Is it just me, or was there way too much skin that was exposed? (Fergie's naked ass anyone?) I am failing to describe how scary this music video is when realizing that young kids are watching this, as well as learning that this is what to be when older.

Viewing "The Informant" through the concept of the Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatus

I recently watched the movie "the Informant", which is a witty comedy about a man who, in his attempt to pacify everyone and get away from a sticky situation with the FBI, becomes tangled in a web of lies. While one can merely enjoy the movie's entertainment value and applaud Matt Damon's acting, I was forced to consider it from an academic point of view. Something that is almost immediately conjured up in my mind is the concept of the Repressive State Apparatus vs. the Ideological State Apparatus. Not just in the movie, but also in the whole concept of going to the theatre to watch it. 

Within the movie, (spoiler alert!) Matt Damon is hung out to dry by the government after he has given them all the information they need about the less than legal workings of the large corporation he works for. In this case, the RSA is the FBI, who exploit Matt Damon to supplement their case, and the ISA is Matt Damon's belief that he will be seen as a hero (or be made the head of said corporation after it is "cleansed"), which turns out to be unfounded.

Within the realm of the real world, I find myself asking this question: In this age of the Internet, Home Theatre Systems, and Netflix, why do we go to the movies? Living in the world we live in today, wouldn't one assume that "movie theaters" are outdated? Why pay too much money for smelly seats in a crowded theater and for over-salted popcorn? Wouldn't one's home be a better place to enjoy movies in comfort (specially with the recent upswing of illegal movie websites)? The answer, of course, can be found by comparing the aforementioned concept of RSI and ISA:

The Repressive State Apparatus is the actual movie theater, which overcharges us for seats and snacks, while the Ideological State Apparatus is our belief that movies are better enjoyed in traditional cinema settings. I believe that this trait is inherent in all of us (it is the reason why many people still choose to have a landline for their home in addition to having cell phones, why people still wear watches despite carrying around a cell phone or i-Pod or a myriad of other devices that tell time, and why people buy cameras despite already having a camera-phone with a high megapixel camera). It overlooks functionality, and merely sees it as something one is "supposed to" do/have. People go to movie theaters because that is merely where one goes to watch a movie.

Neil Patrick Harris – The “Great Gay Hope” or an Emblem of Expanding Hegemony?

(Author's Note: Hey all! Keep in mind I think Neil Patrick Harris is a fantastic and insanely
talented actor no matter what, and deserves all the praise he receives. That being said, now I’m going to be critical regarding his current position in the media world, and how mass media is king of hegemonic superstructures.)

In his article, “Hegemony,” James Lull states that “hegemony is more than social power itself; it is a method for gaining and maintaining power.” Lull goes on to support Antonio Gramsci’s theories on ideology and the abilities of society’s superstructures, such as the mass media, to manipulate the public’s worldview. According to Gramsci, “the mass media uniquely “introduce elements into individual consciousness that would not otherwise appear there, but will not be rejected by consciousness because they are so commonly shared in the cultural community.”

In the 1980s, being an out-ed Hollywood actor was thought to be a death sentence to a person’s career. Even if everyone in the business knew of an actor’s homosexuality, studios worked hard to keep the news out of the press. By 1989, two major actors— England’s Ian McKellen and the U. S.’s Ellen DeGeneres—had come out to the press. Though homosexuality was more accepted in England and was considered normal in the theater world where McKellen primarily was at the time, their actions were seen as hugely counter-hegemonic to the United States press. DeGeneres exposing of her sexuality on her sitcom is still regarded as one of the most shocking moments seen on television.

Approximately ten years later, on September 20, 2009, Neil Patrick Harris hosted the Primetime Emmy Awards, and the September 21st entertainment sections of almost every major newspaper or news website showered praise upon him. Tom O’ Neil of the Los Angeles Times’ The Envelope even went so far as to compile the raves made by reporters from other publications including the New York Times; the Associated Press; and ABC itself. ( http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2009/09/emmy-awards-find-winning-host-in-neil-patrick-harris-entertainment-news-2468097.html) None of the blurbs made note of Harris’s sexual preferences, but focused entirely on his showmanship. Emily Nussbaum’s New York Magazine article, “High Wire Act,” lauds Harris’s achievement of landing the role of the straight male lead in the independent film, The Best and the Brightest, and calls him the “Great Gay Hope.”(http://nymag.com/arts/tv/profiles/59002/)

So, has Harris managed to bridge the gap from a “gay actor” to simply “an actor” on his own talent? Or has the United States media finally figured out a way of packaging a gay man to appeal to a large cross section of the Heartland along with the two Coasts?

In recent years, most major homosexual film stars such as Ellen DeGeneres and Rupert Everett gave their careers a boost by portraying characters in the animated films "Finding Nemo"; and "Shrek 2" and "Shrek the Third" respectively. Ian McKellen gained renown as Magneto in the X-Men series and as Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Interestingly, none of these out-ed actors have ever had leading film roles, but allowed themselves to be relegated to large character parts that become more recognizable than the actor playing them. Everett was even un-credited for his cameo as Christopher Marlow in the Academy Award winning film, "Shakespeare in Love." Although these actors are supremely talented, they are among the few in the business who are judged primarily on ability and likeability instead of physicality.

Neil Patrick Harris is no exception to this rule. He has been immortalized in American pop culture for playing the title role on "Doogie Howser, M. D." Sixteen year old geniuses have the luxury of being obsessed with the opposite sex but are not bound by the laws of TV land to act on their desires. As Barney Stintson on "How I Met Your Mother," Harris’s role was meant to be that of the womanizing sidekick who could get away with wild lines that straight man Ted (Josh Radnor) never could. However, Harris became the show’s superstar perhaps because of his likeability, his appealing but non-threatening looks as well as his ability to pull off the character’s personality and promotion of “The Bro Code” without alienating most if any audience members.

Even in the hugely popular "Dr. Horrible’s Sing-A-Long Blog," part of the appeal of Harris’s character resides in the fact that he (Dr. Horrible) is a classic geek. He is not suave or sophisticated. He is just a guy with a dream, and who is trying to overcome his insecurities to achieve his potential and to get the girl. Meanwhile, his nemesis, Captain Hammer, portrays the classic hero type with the rippling muscles, perfectly quaffed hair, and scores Felicia Day on the first shot. From a theoretical perspective, Dr. Horrible was created to be counter-hegemonic both in its glorification of the anti-hero and distribution as broadcasted solely through the internet. However, its great popularity has larger media networks to praise the production and its titular character to the point that when Dr. Horrible interrupted the Prime Emmy Presentation no one needed to question who these people were. The mini-series itself was even honored at ceremony.

In a few months, Harris will star in the independent film, "The Best and the Brightest," in the role of a straight, married father. Though this role may seem typical even bland it is can prove to be a huge step not only for Harris but also for the gay acting community at large. Although audiences have long accepted homosexual actors in larger than life roles, Harris’s role may be the first time American audiences are able to look upon an out-ed actor in a role saved for the likes of George Clooney or Jude Law. Furthermore, is Harris’s opportunity to have this role based exclusively on talent or is it evidence of a growing hegemony surrounding sexual orientation? Is Harris really the one who managed to cross over? Or is he the one chosen by the media (the big shots who produce the Tonys and the Emmys) to be the cross-over?

Hegemony and Homelessness

[photo via The Sartorialist] This week I commented on the glorification of homeless people by influential (aka wealthy) people in fashion. After taking a closer look, I think that this Zoolander "Derelicte" infatuation can actually be attributed to hegemonic attitudes. Slowly, the "homeless chic" look (it made me nauseous typing that) is making its way to the fashion forefront.

W Magazine did a spread featuring items that could be purchased for hundreds, even thousands of dollars to make consumers look as if they were living in the direst of situations. Erin Wasson, a model-cum-designer famously said “The people with the best style, for me, are the people that are the poorest. Like, when I go down to like Venice Beach and I see the homeless, I’m like, oh my god, you’re pulling out like crazy looks. They pulled shit out of like garbage bags.” Well, they did pull that out of garbage bags and congratulations, these inspirations were just evidenced in your latest RVCA collection at Fashion Week. Now we can all buy into the trend for a couple hundred bucks.

The dominant class and tastemakers will be plucking these homeless inspired looks from the runway followed by major companies capitalizing on the misfortune of others by marketing a more affordable and accessible version of the trend to the middle class. What I find more disturbing is that the group of people who "inspired" this look in are the ones who will still be struggling to survive each day. I think that this form of hegemony is interesting. Unlike other instances where the elite use hegemonic ideologies to maintain their power, this example draws on a situation that neither the masses nor the elite would ever desire.

Cmon, interpellate me.

This week when I was reading chapter two of Practices of Looking, I was really interested in the idea of how images interpellate viewers. It states, “They [media theorists] used this term, as we do, to describe the way that images call out to us, catching our attention (50).” This term of interpellation, coined by Marxist philosopher, Louis Althusser, suggests that we as subjects actually subject ourselves to the power of ideology. This is because we identify with categories of identity that are predetermined within ideological frameworks in American society. Therefore, someone may feel that an image personally touches them, but they can only do so if they are a member of a group to whom its codes “speak”, even if the image doesn’t “say” the same thing to that person as it does to someone else.

I think the reason why this concept really enlightened me was because in the book, they applied it to the use of advertising, the field that I ultimately want to pursue. Those behind the making of advertisements seek to interpellate viewer-consumers in constructing within the “you” of the ad. According to the chapter, “The message of the image, even if not intended for [the viewer] nonetheless draws [them] in as a spectator, interpellating [them]… (50).”

When thinking about this concept of an advertisement reaching out to the potential viewer, I remembered an ad that I saw last year in a magazine when the 2008 Presidential Campaign was going on. The ad featured actress Jessica Alba and read, “Declare Yourself. Only You Can Silence Yourself. Make Them Hear You. Register to Vote at www.DeclareYourself.com.”

When I first looked at the ad, I was really taken aback. Jessica Alba looks terrifying! In her acting roles and to the public, she usually comes across as this pretty, nice, wholesome person. But in this picture, her hair is frizzy, she has tears streaming down her face, and most effective of all, her mouth is nailed shut. I was truly scared by this picture, but once I was able to stop staring at the photo and actually read the text, the message popped out at me like a Jack in the Box. The Declare Yourself Campaign was using a celebrity spokesperson, like Jessica Alba, to empower and encourage those who are eligible to register and vote. The effect of nailing her mouth shut was to emphasize that everyone should exercise his or her right to vote and not be silent about what they believe in. While I was always planning on voting, this ad really spoke to me, or as Louis Althusser calls it, it “hailed” me. After learning about the concept of interpellation, I was able to realize that by using the word “you” in the text, the ad was successful at interpellating me.

Political Action Through Media Parody and Appropiation

Will Ferrell and a cast of other talented actors actively "campaign" for protecting American Insurance Companies in a video clip under the guise of a rather common health care model or pharmaceutical commercial advertising formula. Once the video begins the slogan
Protect Insurance Company's PSA (Hollywood speaks out to help insurance companies) is superimposed on the image.

It looks and feels like the "real thing", and the actors play it straight, albeit with over-dramatized concern and satiric comedy tone, but other than that it's as if this is an advert genuinely concerned for Insurance Companies and the CEO's of those companies. An appropriation of a pretty useful & dramatic format becomes more and more absurd as you watch it. I think, I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that this is a counter-hegemonic display of artists expressing their ideology while getting a political point across with great effect. I have not been following what sounds like a media circus on the health care reform story but I have been getting the gist of it in discussions in class. I will not comment from a personal point of view but I will say that the use of parody and appropriation as shown in this video puts a powerful spin or perspective with the use of comedy and mirroring opposing societal values.

The appropriation of this video format in and of itself itself highlights the maniplutive way these particular types of commercials are shot and stylized, it makes me think of the non-parody "orginal" and thus reveals more absurdity of how these advertising commercials are so geared towards pulling you in with their theatrics. The tone of voice, the music, the dissolves and editing techniques all to convey and effect the viewer to the advantage of the producer, sponsor, etc., through trying to appeal to the sensibilities or vulnerabilities or distract and capture the attention of an audience with an urgent, concerned tone.

Enjoy!!!!!
http://pol.moveon.org/insurance_execs/?rc=fb.6&reloaded=1

ABC Family and their portrayal of families

The Secret Life of the American Teenager is a show aired by ABC Family in which the plot revolves around this teenager who just had a baby at 15. I must admit the show is corny, badly written, and the actors are not Emmy-worthy, but this show reminds me of the “novelas” back home so it’s one of my guilty pleasures. One of the characters in the show is called Adrienne. She is a grade older than the main character (Amy) and frequently messes around with the father of the teenage girls’ baby (again, Amy). Adrianne is of Latin background and this is enforced by her body frame and some Spanish lines she has during the show. While Adrienne represents a minority in this show, the cast consists of mostly white-American characters (with only two black characters...who are actually siblings) and they are all teenagers concerned about sex before marriage (as I mentioned before…this show is really corny).
I feel like Adrienne’s character and the differences in behavior between her and the other characters show the hegemony of the ruling class. The show is portraying Latin people to be promiscuous and not like the common ‘’American Sweetheart’’ because Adrienne’s attitude in the show is a promiscuous one and she is the only character in the show that has sex frequently with different partners. This hegemonic attitude is not only seen in her character, her mom is a single mom who never got married and has extramarital sex with the father of the Amy (who’s married at the time). Adrienne has an estranged father whom she finds in one of the episodes of the earlier seasons and is already married with a stable family. Once the father reconnects with Adrienne's mom, he leaves his wife and gets back together with Adrienne’s mom. This shows a hegemony in the portrayal of the ‘’All American’’ family structure. From the character of Adrienne to her parents, we can see that our culture is being exposed to a belief that a family that is not White American is composed of dysfunctional characters, that each have their own back story and specific issues and that teenagers raised with a Latin background are more promiscuous and ‘’slutty’’. It also portrays the Latin person as someone who is wrecking the common American household. Adrienne makes Ricky (the baby’s father) not be with Amy (the baby’s mother), her mom breaks Amy’s family, and her dad leaves his wife which ultimately wrecks that family too. It shows Latin people as people that come in to destroy the American household. and if we think a little more outside the box, as so many Latinos keep immigrating to the USA, shows who casts Latinos like this transmit the message that Latinos come to America to tarnish the principles of the American culture and ultimately damage the image of Latinos in American culture.

Here is a link to the show's first preview if you want to check it out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAxXSfZWi-A

The Bachelorette: A Rose for True Love? Or Better Ratings?

So I’m going to start this blog post off with a confession. I was obsessed with the most recent season of “The Bachelorette.” I typically hate those types of shows, but I was sick for a few days this past summer and was browsing through my DVR and saw that my mom had accidentally set it to record every new episode. So I figured I would watch one or two just to pass the time. Then I got addicted, and I even got my 21 year-old brother to look forward to watching it on Monday nights with me.

When we were talking about hegemony in class, I thought about this show. The hegemonic idea of this show suggests that any ordinary woman can find true love among a group of randomly chosen men. I definitely take the counterhegemonic viewpoint. In my opinion, this show is entirely fabricated by the producers, whether or not the participants and viewers realize. The daters are put in exotic locales and given once-in-a-lifetime dates. This one “ordinary woman” is usually a finalist from a former season of “The Bachelor,” and these 25 men are always attractive, employed, and catered to a specific bachelorette’s taste (for example, most of the men from this past season were from the south, and Jillian, the Bachelorette, stated that she loved southern gentlemen). The producers also provide the contestants with far more alcohol than real food, further instigating drama and entertaining “reality.”

This show is also a great example of how the show’s creators can commodify the contestants on the “reality” show. Editors edit certain clips together to give different men different personalities. There’s Kiptyn, the perfect man; Alex, the aggressive former frat-boy; Wes, the oh-so-average country musician who is only on the show to gain fame and who everyone loves to hate; Tanner P., the guy with the foot fetish; and the list goes on and on. Viewers aren’t just watching the show to watch Jillian fall in love; they’re watching for the entertainment value of these different characters and the drama that they cause or create.

Here’s a clip about Tanner P.’s foot fetish, so those of you who didn’t watch the show can see how exaggerated these personas become. Enjoy. Discuss!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csJF-e1Y61E

Today in our world, many people love expensive materialistic products. These days, if the product is expensive, it is a lot better than the same product that may have been $50 dollars cheaper. We are easily convinced that this product is better for us and that we have to have it.
When a woman holds a Louis Vuitton or Chanel bag many Americans connect that with wealth and having good taste. But is it good taste because it is expensive? A lot of women have these very expensive bags and a lot of them buy imitations that are cheaper, just to hold that style. But, why is caring a thousand dollar bag considered stylish and having good taste. Are these bags really worth all of those credit card debts?


In seems that society loves these products because of the trickledown theory. People who are rich hold these bags and it just seems so luxurious and extravagant because it is expensive and they are carrying it. There are a lot of products that are expensive but you don’t see people jumping out into the streets to buy those products. They are not interested because the rich do not consume these products and therefore it is not as valuable. Our taste is defined with what most of the public perceives as glamorous and stylish. Fashion is shaped for us to feel that certain clothing is okay and certain clothing is not. Magazines companies and designers tell us how to dress and define our taste for us with marketing strategies and advertisements. We are the consumers that are brain washed into receiving these images and making it into our style. American’s don’t know what they truly like anymore. Taste and quality is now in the hold of the public; if majority of the people and those who critic fashion say it’s good it’s good; and that is what it is.

Racial Profiling in Missing Person Cases

This past month, Jaycee Dugard was discovered alive in California eighteen years after she was abducted from her bus stop. Jaycee's childhood picture has graced the cover of People Magazine and has been given major airtime on all the major news networks. I often find myself fascinated by stories like this of missing people, however I cant help but notice the similarities between so many of the victims that get television airtime. Besides for Jaycee Dugard, Elizabeth Smart, Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson have all been major news stories in the past decade about missing people. Of the missing cases the media covers, almost all of them are about attractive, white, young women. The reality of missing cases is very different. 

According to these graphs from the FBI, the majority of missing people in the US are men, not women like the media portrays. And while the majority of missing people may be white, almost 30% are black, a number which is not accurately reported in the media. There are currently 47,6000 missing people worldwide, less than five cases are given true media attention every year. In 2004, when a young african- american girl, Tamika Huston vanished  her family and friend tried desperately to get her story covered by the media and were completely ignored. While NBC, CBS, and ABC gave a combined 941 minutes to cover Lacy Peterson in 2004, the best Tamika ever got was a 15 second mention on Fox. This is not a coincidence!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8667821//- image and information source

Here are some pictures of popular missing persons cases: note the similarities

  Laci Peterson

  Chandra Levy

 Elizabeth Smart

 Jaycee Dugard

Ozarka's "Eco-friendly Bottles"

People everywhere have become accustomed to using water bottles. Sure they are handy but really how many people honestly recycle them. If someone is grabbing one on-the-go it is probably going to end up in a trash can on the street somewhere. Ozarka is trying to take the stigma off of water bottles by releasing an "environmentally friendly" one. Their ads show people drinking these bottles in front of lush greenery, surrounded by nature. Yes they are using 30% less plastic to produce each bottle, but that is only going to make people feel more comfortable with buying and using them, which ultimately leads to more production of these bottles which pretty much defeats the purpose.

The consumers are going to feel great about purchasing this product because in some from the are totally "helping the earth" and preserving nature. While Ozarka will feel great about having a nice big profit.

http://static.huddler.com/imgrepo/thumbs/c/c0/ozarka-eco-bottle.jpg/600x800px-LL-ozarka-eco-bottle.jpg

I Can See Clearly Now (because I wear glasses)

When I was younger, I associated wearing glasses with two things: old people (librarians, grandparents) and nerds (Saved By the Bell anyone?).  Then in fourth grade, I got the news: I would need a pair of my own.  At first, I was saddened by this news.  Glasses?  Really?  But I soon adjusted and eventually glasses became a part of my identity.  Without them I know I can't see, and I realized that they are not just for old folks and geeks, but rather they served the purpose of allowing sight.  

However, in recent years, in an instance of bricolage, glasses have taken on a new meaning due to the hipster subculture.  If you walk anywhere in the village, especially on the NYU campus, you are sure to see people wearing thick plastic frames that are over the top noticeable and years ago would have only been seen on fans of talk show host Sally Jessy Raphael (pictured), not on "fashionable" young adults.  

I think this change in glasses as a device to give sight to a fashionable accessory is quite ironic because as someone who is always going to need to wear glasses, I often think about how much I would love to have perfect vision and not need glasses or contacts.  Ironically, people who don't even need glasses, wear these ridiculous frames just to look "cool" (even though half the time they look ridiculous as their frames are 50 times the size of their face); they don't even realize how much glasses are a burden to people like me who can't see five inches in front of them.  Eventually however, when glasses go out of style, these hipsters will just stop wearing their frames (or, if in the odd chance they actually do have poor vision, they will revert to contacts).  I on the other hand, will keep wearing my glasses.   

Messages in Music

We have both read about and discussed in depth the effects of "interpellation" in advertising and on television this week, which made me think of its presence within the music industry. This might be a stretch, but while the lyrical content of a song is not a direct advertisement in itself, I wonder if all the many songs that are about "you" or "him" or "her" could be interpreted as manifestations of interpellation themselves....

People are more likely to listen to songs that they identify with. If all artists wrote all their music about specific incidents of their lives or certain people, they wouldn't sell as well because people would just be like, "why should I care?" But when the singer addresses a general "you" or "s/he" then people can easily identify with the song and relate it to their own lives and emotions, or even interpret it as the singer is singing to them. Thus, people will listen to and buy their music because they feel a connection with the singer - "you are who I am singing to, you are who I understand, you are going through the same thing I am going through...BUY MY ALBUM!"

Furthermore, popular music is often used to express and promote ideologies or to rebel against them. Gender, racial, social, sexual, and political ideas are prevalent within lyrics of all kinds of music. An example would be the argument that rap music influences younger listeners to be more violent or sexually active. Another would be Ne-Yo's "Miss Independent" which suggests that men are having increasing respect and attraction towards women who are able to do their own thing. However, ideologies are not expressed solely in the message given by the music itself, but also in the actions and beliefs promoted by celebrity musicians as "role models" for young people. Seriously....we just can't escape it O_O

Motorcycle Jackets... Bad to the Bone?

One of the biggest trends this fall is the return of the motorcycle jacket. I’ve seen plenty on the streets of New York, in promotional emails, and on the pages of magazines. I think it’s a great example of reappropriation and counter-bricolage. Most people don’t recognize the fact that motorcycle jackets were originally designed for the safety of the bike rider. I did a little research and this style jacket has been around since 1928. Schott NYC designed the jacket and distributed it through Harley Davidson. It quickly became an iconic “bad boy” symbol as made famous by Marlon Brando and James Dean. According to the Schott website, the jacket was banned by school districts in the 50s because it symbolized “the hood” teen demographic. I would bet what most people associate with the leather motorcycle jacket are images of Danny Zuko and the T-birds or the Ramones. Somehow over time, the motorcycle jacket has lost some of that association and has become mainstream. While wearing a leather jacket still has some of that tough guy quality, it has ultimately lost its status as a sign of rebellion. It has become a commodity and now you can buy one at Target, Express, or Forever21. A faux leather variety will cost you somewhere around $50 but an authentic, original Schott can run from around $250 all the way to $900. 

 

Dolce and Gabanna is letting the viewers make a LOT of meaning.

This week we read about how no matter what the sender tries to encode in his message, it's always what the receivers decode that actually counts. Think about how many times you have said something that you meant one way, but it was interpreted in a completely different way by the person you were talking to...that's communication in a nutshell. I am intrigued by these new Dolce and Gabanna fragrance ads that are ALL over NYC right now. I'm sure everyone has seen them, but in case you haven't, the picture is above. In most of the ads, there is usually a bottle of perfume or cologne at the bottom, but it must have gotten cut off in this picture.

Essentially, the ad is saying that if you buy our fragrance, you can look like, and have, any one of these beautiful people. It is probably the oldest trick in the advertising book, but it's so effective and yet so simple. What's particularly fascinating to me is the strategic way the models are arranged, and I think it's a way to appeal to the broadest audience. There is the heterosexual couple in the upper right corner, the two girls together in the bottom left, and the unpaired men in the bottom right and upper left corners. Are the men trying to get in on what's happening next to them, or do they actually desire each other? There is so much mystery in this picture, that the viewer can legitimately create any scenario that works for them. Also, if you look closely, it's pretty obvious that these models are photoshopped together from separate images and not all in the same place.

Street Couture

The well known and highly respected fashion photographer and blogger known to readers as "The Sartorialist" recently photographed a homeless man in New York City. The picture is a departure from his usual subjects: models, the elite of the fashion industry, wealthy well dressed Italian business men. The subject is dressed in multiple layers of tattered, mismatched clothing. 

I don't believe the Sartorialist's motive in capturing this man on camera was to wrench the hearts of his readers. Rather, he is visually pointing out the inspiration behind many of the looks he has recently shot. As we discussed in class, recent fashion trends have leaned significantly towards the casual end of the dress spectrum - ripped jeans, torn and dirty t-shirts occupy store windows from Soho to Midtown to the Upper East Side. Fashion houses are drawing their inspiration from the demographic for which high fashion is unattainable - the desperately poor. The appeal of such ragged clothing to the wealthiest, most influential people in the world is a testament to the power of advertising and PR on the part of the world's most famous fashion houses. 

On a separate fashion blog, which focuses on shooting models and TV personalities in New York City, the influence of the cities poorest residents is exemplified. Models and many personalities are the vehicle through which designers communicate and display their latest designs; they are essentially walking advertisements. Below is a picture of MTV show host Alexa Chung in a pair of tattered denim cut-offs, reminiscent of those worn by the homeless man in the picture above: 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2467/3939607092_9cc1d0df6d_b.jpg

and on models:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2592/3911769386_28e487e628_b.jpg

I wonder if in our current times of economic struggle whether this look will become even more popular, or whether it will become taboo. Are designers capitalizing on economic tragedy and despair by charging an arm and a leg for clothing inspired by people who don't have a cent to their name?

Interpellation of Sprite: Obey Your Thirst

I think interpellation is one of the key terms that stuck with me this past week. I never have really thought about it before and was struck by the idea that indeed ads are trying to call out to you, to grab your specific attention and then they hope you connect with the product and want to BUY, BUY, BUY! Before I go into a more specific ad campaign, I just wanted to note that the pop up ads online are doing this all the time. Most of them say, "YOU have just won a free iPod." They are flashy and in your face and are telling you that you won. At first (when they first started appearing) I was sucked in and thought that there was some truth to it, so I played along. Now thankfully I am smart enough to realize that every person with a computer gets the same message and THEY have just won as well.

One advertising campaign I can think of that is particularly speaking to You is Sprite. There slogan is "Obey your thirst." They have successfully used this slogan for as long as I can remember and sometimes it really does make me think about if I am thirsty or not. Needless to say I am not a huge Sprite fan so I wouldn't necessarily grab a Sprite if I'm thirsty. In a lot of there ads also people turn into water or dive into water when they drink sprite. I guess humans are mostly water, so by obeying one's thirst, we are more hydrated and turn into water?? Well, most of the commercials show people who are obviously thirsty grab a Sprite and chug it, so I would say it is relatively good advertising based on their slogan. This ad speaks directly to the thirsty consumer, saying that indeed they should go get a drink and rehydrate. My question is, doesn't soda make you more dehydrated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yteHo6vAdwE

While researching I also found this ad that is a banned Sprite ad which I guess was pulled off of the air. A girl and guy are swimming on a remote beach, she takes off her bathing suit bottoms, tosses them to him and then gets out and grabs a Sprite Zero. Hmm I'm wondering how this has anything to do with Sprite...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNC2kcDfQ8M

On another random note, I watched the Grey's Anatomy season premiere last night. I'm not going to lie it was a little bit obnoxious how many commercials there were in 2 hours. It seemed ridiculous, but maybe it was just because I was paying more attention now. Either way, super annoying!!!

Estee Lauder, Hegemony, Ideology, and Interpellation

EDIT: The pictures are too big, but if you click them, you can see the whole picture.

Sometimes on Hulu, the viewer is given the choice between regular commercials or watching a long ad at the beginning of her video and then watching the rest commercial free. Cosmetics brand Estee Lauder took this idea further by creating an interactive anti-aging skin care quiz in which the viewer moves a dial between two extremes. Since I am a 20-year-old nonsmoker who wears sunblock every time I am in the sun and try to avoid the sun as much as possible, my answers always fell under the "no signs of aging" category. Every time I selected that option, the feature would ask me if I was sure, followed by some cautionary blurb about how eventually I will have visible signs of aging.

Here is an example:


LOVE the "hint" to move the slider to the right. The ad is actually telling me what my skin looks like.

When I finally finished the quiz, here is the result I got:


This video relates to interpellation because it is speaking to me personally, but I did not interpret it the way that Estee Lauder wanted me to because I did not acknowledge the nonexistant signs of aging my face has and because I did not find the quiz useful or want to know more about the product. Instead, I had an oppositional reading because I found the quiz to be totally offensive and thought that the text's warning about "external assaults" was kind of hilarious.

I think that this ad very clearly promotes the ideology that women should not show signs of aging and that I should be concerned with my appearance. The quiz tells me that I have flaws that need to be fixed. I think that the language used- calling sun exposure an "environmental assault" for example- is interesting as well because it is clearly trying to frighten its viewers. It may be a stretch but I think that the video also very subtley promotes the idea that a woman's place is in the home where environmental assaults such as pollution and sun exposure cannot harm her.

I am still slightly confused about the difference between ideology and and hegemony, but I think that Estee Lauder's ad is an example of hegemony because the idea that women are and should be concerned with their looks is a dominant one that we see from other media as well. The idea is promoted by dominant forces in society such as magazines, ads, television shows, movies, the cosmetics industry, and the fashion industry. These are all institutions that hold a great deal of power in society.

The quality of this video is really crappy, but it shows how the ad works:


Annoying, right?

*Images are from the blog Jess and Josh Talk About Stuff. If anyone is looking for something interesting to read, it's a good one.

Its All About You

While watching this week’s two-hour season premier of Grey’s Anatomy, I was bombarded by various commercials that were rooted in the methods of interpellation.  From iPod nano commercials to the news, it was apparent that the viewer was being addressed.  A repeated headline for the 11pm news announced “Find out what they are doing before it makes you sick”.  Given little information regarding the “it” in the headline, the news attempted to draw us in.  While my roommate and I were not really alarmed, we were curious as to what the it was and what viewer would really be affected.  The use of the word you transforms the audience into the singular individual.

 

One of the commercials that stuck out for me was the Special K commercial.  After the show was over I tried to find the commercial online, but I was unable to find it.  However I did come across the Special K website. 

 

http://www.specialk.com/

 

From the moment I opened the website I was inundated by yous.  “What’s your food personality?”, “Design your plan”, “Kick-start your Special K challenge”, etc.  The website and commercials promote customization.  The viewer is provided “tips of the day”, specialized diet plans and success stories.  While the producer and viewer are not directly engaging, Special K attempts to make the experience for each viewer a personal one.  In this case I believe Special K wants to stress that everyone, in his or her own way, is “exactly the subject for whom the message is intended” (Practices of Looking, p. 51). 

 

Here is another Special K commercial from earlier this year.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiU9DMAW1Dg&feature=related

 

 

Gender Swap - Men are In

We've been talking about reappropriation of images, and it got me thinking about the current trend of defying the norm and swapping genders. It's nothing new to send a model down the runway with looking like a lanky 12-year-old boy, but fashion designers are pushing the limits. One of my favorite all-American designers, Ralph Lauren (I know I always make reference to him), is reminding us that males have the best style. Forget the female muse, men are in this season.


RALPH LAUREN SPRING 2010

Is Ralph Lauren reinforcing male patriarchy? I'm not so sure. Whereas women normally dominate aesthetic images of beauty (without sexuality), there is something visually pleasing about a well-polished man. We give them names like "pretty-boy" or "metro-sexual" to show the femininity of being fashion conscious. Even eHow has an article about it:

How to Be a Metrosexual | eHow.com


It seems like the Queer Eye just might be getting to us. Gay culture is becoming that much more acceptable. Pretty soon, Prop 8 will be just another hurdle crossed for civil rights legislation. Meanwhile we'll keep the men in their skinny jeans and women in their short haircuts on our gaydar, because that's the best way to tell (as if it even matters).

http://www.thedailycougar.com/out-and-about-gay-community-more-than-what-s-on-television-1.1906115



http://www.thedailycougar.com/out-and-about-gay-community-more-than-what-s-on-television-1.1906115

Interpellation & Gatorade: Is it in YOU ?

One of the most effective uses of interpellation that I can think of is Gaterade’s ongoing sports campaign using the slogan “Is It In You?” Interpellation is successful when the viewer feels like the message touches he or she personally, but also addresses a large group of people for which the message is meaningful. Gatorade’s slogan does just that, and the Gatorade campaign has been successful throughout the years. Their trademark saying, “Is it In You” can mean so much to so many different people, yet it is still appealing to the masses. Capitalizing on famous sports players, and having a constant presence on sidelines has allowed the brand to become synonymous with sports, victories, and hard work. After all, whenever a championship is won, the coach ALWAYS gets shocked with a jug of Gatorade poured over their head, and that big orange bin has become a staple on the sidelines of athletic events. Taglines such as “It’s knowing you belong out there” and “It’s never wanting to stop,” followed by “Is It In You?” challenge the viewer.

Growing up playing soccer all my life, I had these advertisements taped all over my walls, especially the ones of Mia Hamm, the then famous female soccer player who helped lead the Women’s World Cup team to the national championship in 1999. I was so inspired by the stories of the female players on the team, how hard they worked, and the sacrifices they made to get to where they were in life. After seeing the ads of Mia Hamm endorsing Gatorade, I wanted to prove that whatever she had in her that pushed her to work so hard, I had in me, too. Gatorade claims “it” is in people like Mia Hamm and Michael Jordan, and then challenges the viewer personally if “it” is also in them- if they have what it takes. “It” is many different things for many different people, and this simple question raises an inspiring challenge. Gatorade successfully uses interpellation to reach a mass audience while also challenging each person individual: “Is It In You?”

Is It In You Gatorade Commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqCZV-_8Qc

Obama + The Molotov Man

When we discussed the article, “On the Rights of Molotov Man,” I couldn’t help but think of the controversy surrounding the Barack Obama “Hope” picture. The piece of artwork that was seen everywhere during the Obama campaign was created by artist Shepart Fairley. However, the basis for the artwork was a photograph taking by Associated Press photographer Mannie Garcia. Controversy ensued, as the AP said they did not grant Fairley permission to use the picture and are therefore entitled to Fairley’s profit gained from his artwork. On the other hand, Fairley contended that he had a right to use the photograph because of the fair use exception to the copyright law which allows use of copyrighted materials for such purposes as news reporting, academics, criticism, etc, just as Joy Garnett contended that she could use the Molotov photograph. It shows how the line on copyrighted images is blurred and how sometimes, no one person can claim complete control over a picture. In turn, the real truths behind an image get lost. Just as the Che Guevara image is seemingly the mascot for rebellion, a photo of Obama taken at a campaign stop suddenly became the face of hope.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/arts/design/10fair.html

Adverse effects of commercialized art

My first conscious encounter with the commercialization of art occurred last summer when I was doing endless amounts of shopping in preparation for my freshman year of college. While I was familiar with the word ‘commercialization’ and knew about the concept for quite some time, I had never really given much thought to what it meant. For so long, I accepted commercialization for what it was and even bought into the ubiquitous and unavoidable phenomenon. But as I was walking through the aisles of Bed Bath & Beyond and landed in what they call the Home Décor section, it dawned on me how destructive commercialization actually is. What sparked this revelation was an encounter with stacks upon stacks of Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe diptych. There were an array of colors, sizes, and assortments, and it seemed that half of the floor had been consumed by these despoiled pieces of art. Then, a girl and her mother strolled by with pink college gear in tow, and the girl picked up one of the canvases and dropped it in her cart. Her mother said, “Sarah, do you even know who painted these?” And Sarah replied, “No, Ma. But it’s cute and the colors match my bedding!” This was my breaking point. I watched this girl pick up one of Andy Warhol’s mass-produced paintings and she didn’t even care about who painted the original. Apparently, all that mattered was that it was cute and that the color schemes were coordinated. Damn, I wouldn’t have been surprised if she didn’t know that Marilyn Monroe was the woman in the picture.

Well, I guess that’s capitalism for you – everything is turned into objects and reproduced for the purpose of generating profit. You can see it everywhere. Images are screened onto things ranging from t-shirts and mugs to birthday cakes. And with my first example, pieces of art are mass-produced, sold in Bed Bath & Beyond, and marketed towards teenage girls for the purpose of hanging them in their college dorm rooms. Sorry folks, but commercialization is inescapable.

What saddened me so much was that this girl didn’t pick up the Warhol piece because she loves Andy Warhol’s pop art-style or because she collects every variation to that diptych there is. She picked it up because of something called image reproduction. Left and right, images are being reproduced to the point where they lack their original meaning. Consequently, art is now being tailored to meet a particular style in the efforts to appeal to a specific commercial market. In summation, art is now a commodity and more often than not, no longer the expression of the artist’s fundamental ideas.

Here is a link to one of Bed Bath & Beyond’s commercialized Andy Warhol’s:

http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=16064700

P.S. That’s $30?!?

The Icons of 21st Century America

This has been a month of outbursts! I hate to go back to the examples that everyone has already brought up (and that the media went crazy over this past two weeks), but I really need to talk about the three big events that took place (events so controversial, they managed to practically obliterate the news of Patrick Swayze’s death!):

1. Kanye West’s drunken interruption of Taylor Swift’s VMA acceptance speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z8gCZ7zpsQ)

2. Serena Williams’ outburst at the US Open  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO_jlXjgxN8)

3. Joe Wilson’s heckling/interruption of President Obama’s healthcare speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxHKSHvMRWE)

The most interesting thing about all of these videos is the number of times they have been spoofed/mentioned/made fun of/relived on every conceivable media outlet in the past few weeks. An example (out of hundreds!) for each is provided below for anyone who has some time to kill:

1.       Kanye West and Taylor Swift - http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1791619

2.       Serena Williams - http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s6i59802

3.       Joe Wilson - http://www.hulu.com/watch/96393/saturday-night-live-update-thursday-republican-meeting

I couldn’t help but laugh at the fact that things that can, at best, be classified as “juicy gossip”, seem to have a much bigger impact on our lives and daily conversations than things that actually matter. Joe Wilson’s interruption of President Obama’s speech and the subsequent media coverage of his interruption have allowed the American public to disregard the actual content of a speech that affects the healthcare of American citizens and instead start “hating on the idiot from North Carolina”. It is also amusing that people automatically assumed the interruption to be racially motivated (I’m looking at you, Former President Carter…), and were enraged at the mistreatment of America’s first black president, while others were very angry that a black man (Kanye West) interrupted a white woman (Taylor Swift)!

Racism aside, I think all these are excellent examples of the meaning of images being dependent on the social contexts in which they are viewed (Sturken & Cartwright). As cheesy as it sounds, this is the age of communication. As soon as an incident of the slightest bit of importance occurs in one part of the world, it can instantaneously be sent to millions of people. Unfortunately, profit-driven conglomerates control the initial spread of media, so the information received by secondary viewers like us is often vapid and is what those conglomerates think we want to see (god forbid FOX news ever shuts up about “Muslim” Barack and gives us an update on Darfur!). Therefore, events like the three mentioned above are given much more importance than the fact that the unemployment rate in California is the highest it has been in 70 years (that means that even the gold miners were better off than present-day Californians are!), or that the recent Iranian elections were obviously rigged, or that while Obama’s whole campaign was based on “transparency”, the current democratic government seems to be ever more secretive and evasive about important issues like the Iraq war and overcoming the hurdles facing the healthcare reform initiative.

This leads me to the concept of the icon. In the past, Icons (such as the heavily discussed Che) were infallible pillars that inspired the youth and prompted society to evolve, and to better itself. My musings on the icons of today (Kanye West is very popular in the realm of music- the self-proclaimed “voice of this generation”, and in the realm of blurting “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people” on TV; Serena Williams has always been an icon for minority women struggling in the field of sports; Joe Wilson interrupted Obama, who is the most obvious icon of 2008 and 2009, and who will go down in history not only as the first Black president of the United States, but as the man who, and I quote, called Kanye West a “jackass”) center around the fact that present-day icons are fallible.

The current culture of communication leaves nothing private (the image as surveillance, Sturken & Cartwright, Pg. 27), and therefore, displays a whole different side to the iconic image of important public figures. Thus, my question for the week is: In the 21^st century culture of the all-knowing public/audience, can icons remain icons for very long?

"American Girl in Italy", Dolce & Gabbana, and the image of women

One of my favorite photos is Ruth Orkin’s “American Girl in Italy”. The photo was taken in Florence in 1951 when Orkin was traveling through Europe. She met another single, female, traveling American named Jinx Allen who became the subject of Orkin’s famous image, part of a series entitled “Don’t be Afraid to Travel Alone”. Applying Barthe’s theories, it is interesting to examine Orkin’s photograph. The studium, or photographic “truth”, of the image is clear: There is an American woman walking down a Florentine street as a dozen or so men ogle at her. There is a striped awning, and a café storefront, a large flower sconce, and hanging lanterns. The men are surrounding her- some standing, some sitting at tables, and two sitting on top of a motorbike. These are all technical facts about the photo, but the emotional quality, or punctum, of the image is another unique truth. I love this photo because I have an emotional connection with it. It reminds me of my grandparents and the Italy they left behind when they came to the United States in 1954. My grandfather still dresses like the men in this photo to this day. I think about how an Italian man wouldn’t think twice about whistling to a girl walking down the street. In my opinion, Orkin’s photo is charming and innocent. The American woman looks a bit ruffled, obviously not expecting such attention. But the men’s stares are fleeting, I imagine they went home to their wives not thinking twice about the encounter they had on that street corner. Someone else might find their behavior demeaning, but I think it’s just a reflection of 1950s mentality when it was standard for a man to let a woman know just how attractive she was with a whistle and a wink.

Take “American Girl in Italy” and juxtapose it with this controversial Dolce & Gabbana ad from 2007 and we learn even more about how punctum reveals another truth within an image. The studium of the D&G ad has similarities to Orkin’s image. In the ad, a group of men surround an attractive young woman. However, some distinct differences in the studium of the image greatly affect the punctum. One of the men, shirtless, leans over the woman who is laying down, knees bent and pelvis in the air. He is pinning her arms down and her eyes are closed. The men surrounding them seem to be moving in, their eyes on the action. The emotional quality of this image is obvious. It’s resemblance to a gang rape scene caused great controversy and the ad was banned. This advertisement completely lacks the nostalgia and innocence of Orkin’s photo. In a 21^st century world, this image is not charming at all, but disturbing in nature. What is Dolce & Gabbana saying about Italian men and the submissiveness of women? The woman is powerless in this image and ironically, she looks less frightened then the subject of “American Girl in Italy”. Orkin’s photo is about the admiration of female beauty, regardless of the young woman’s embarrassment. The Dolce & Gabbana ad is about domination and control, yet the woman in this image puts up no resistance. Are women thought of as objects more so now then they ever were?

American Girl In Italy: 

http://www.tribalturk.com/wp-content/gallery/fotografacumle/americangirlinitaly.jpg

Dolce & Gabbana ad: 

http://amandagore.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/dg-ad.jpg

 

Where There's Hope, Adventure, and Wild Things.

Remember the awesome children's book, Where the Wild Things Are? It's going to be out in theaters next month (October 16th to be precise). I have seen the trailer at least twenty times over the past few months, and I enjoy it every time. The cinematography is stunning, the "wild things" are extremely realistic, but most of all, the music fits the images / scenes perfectly. In class we discussed how cinema "added the elements of temporality, movement, and eventually sound to photography" (Stutken and Cartwright, pg 189). This trailer is an exquisite example of a good narrative storytelling with music and movement. Please watch the first trailer:

It is a creation of conscious and intentional ordering of images that match with the music uncannily well. When the song hits a loud note, there are explosions and abrupt changing of scenes, when there is a fast-paced cheery melody there is a collection of running scenes, etc... Even a short 2 minute clip can render strong and diverse emotions. Now, a few days ago, I stumbled upon a new trailer of the movie. Although it uses segments of the same song, the narrative is telling a different story, since the scenes are ordered in different way. This new trailer has more dialogue than the first one, so that also plays a role in the certain mood and narrative it projects.

So in this trailer, some of the running scenes were used in different parts of the song than the first trailer and new scenes were added. The different combinations of the sequence of moving images and sound truly creates a different story/narrative. Each frame builds on the previous one, so the order and sequence of images mean everything when trying to convey a certain emotion. Adding the right music to a film or trailer definitely sets the mood and can enhance the effects. I think the first trailer did a flawless job of matching the music and the scenes together, but the second trailer definitely allowed a more powerful link to the characters. So which trailer did you enjoy more?

Thích Quảng Đức: Self-Immolation

When I came across the photo of Emmett Till in "Images, Power, and Politics" and the section regarding the power of photography and visual images in making a statement, I immediately thought of Thích Quảng Đức, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who burned himself in the middle of a busy intersection in Saigon in 1963.

Thích Quảng Đức's self-immolation was an act of protest against the Diệm administration's persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam at the time. Photographers and stories about the self-immolation were printed in newspapers (including the New York Times) and broadcasted on television across the world by the very next day, informing millions of readers worldwide of Thích Quảng Đức's act of protest, bringing international attention to the South Vietnamese government. Photographer Malcolm Browne won a Pulitzer Prize for his photograph of the monk. This uproar in the media even moved many nations, including the United States, to intervene with the Diệm, warning the government to change their reforms and essentially stop persecuting the Buddhists (and they eventually complied).

Without the media and photographic documentation of Thích Quảng Đức's selfless act, the Vietnamese government probably could've easily covered it up...which would've sucked. Similar to the example of Emmett Till's brutal killing, the media attention received by Thích Quảng Đức's self-immolation demonstrates "the power of the photograph to provide evidence of violence and injustice is coupled with the photograph's power to shock and horrify" (Sturken & Cartwright 11).

Link to Malcolm Browne's Pulitzer Prize photograph: [[click!]]

Pepsi and American Culture

You guys don’t know this about me but I am a sports freak. Weird coming from a girl I know, but I grew up watching sports with my dad and ever since I have been infatuated by the sports world (my major before communications was sports management). So while many people love to watch the popular Geico, MasterCard or Heineken ads...I love watching sports ads and sometimes I spend hours on YouTube just browsing sports commercials. That’s how I came across with the new ad for Pepsi, which shows modern as well as old historic moments in baseball while the people being part of this moment are drinking Pepsi.

As I kept watching this commercial it came to my mind how we were discussing in class the images used in ads and what the companies promoting their products want them to represent. In this commercial which features important moments of baseball through generations Pepsi is trying to establish itself as an essential part of American culture. By combining what is often called ''America’s pastime'' with their logo, Pepsi is trying to establish them as an icon of American culture. The split screen aspect of the commercial helps the viewer grasp better the meaning of the ad because you can see the resemblance of the moments shown even though they happened in completely different generations. Noticeable aspects of this ad include the part where the player runs into the logo of Pepsi in the stadium while trying to catch a ball, the shots of Babe Ruth and Derek Jeter (both important figures of the sport as well as American culture, even though the belong to different generations), and lastly at the end of the commercial when it says ‘’Every generation refreshes the world’’. All of these parts of the ad appeal to the American culture and how Pepsi is involved with it (for those of you who don’t know many Pepsi slogan include the word generation i.e. the ‘’Generation Next’’ campaign held a few years ago). Lastly, I feel like this ‘’historic’’ approach to advertisement is a different one from the Pepsi traditional ad which features celebrities such as Britney Spears, the Spice Girls, etc…and I feel like Pepsi is doing this because since its major competition, Coca Cola, is one of the most recognizable icons of American culture, Pepsi needs to step it up in that aspect and try to appeal to the loyal consumer instead of the young consumer who does whatever his/hers favorite celebrity does.

Here's the link for the commercial so you can check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/pepsi#play/uploads/34/-fHoGRauXRE

Aura and Authenticity

After moving into my Lafayette dorm room and unpacking all of the basic essentials (clothes, food, school supplies, toiletries, and more food) I found myself somewhat excited to decorate my room with the posters I brought from home. But why? Technically they are just enlarged images, and beyond their aesthetic appeal what warrants this feeling of excitement?

As I write this blog entry and admire my various posters (one of the TV show Entourage, one for The Dark Knight, and a Lupe Fiasco "The Cool" album poster) I realize that these simple and mass produced images take on a completely different meaning within my own perspective. In a sense they have become images of my own making. The Lupe Fiasco poster will perhaps best describe this idea.

The poster is simple. It is black and white with 3/4 of the space used up by the enlarged text of "Lupe Fiasco, THE COOL, In Stores Now", and the rest of it showcasing 3 images stripped from the album artwork. In terms of acting as a "decoration" it's dull colors and heavy use of text don't really bring much to the table. If someone else were to admire it they'd probably have trouble understanding its appeal considering the many tears the poster has endured, as well as the fact that it is truly just a blatant advertisement. To me, however, I feel as certain connection to the poster, and not simply because it is for my favorite rapper.

The tears, for example, only exist because I ripped it off of the wall of a club where I went to a Lupe concert in Washington DC. When viewing the poster and seeing its tears I am immediately brought back to the time in which i captured the poster. That thought, in turn, reminds me of how after the concert my brother and I got lost in a pretty rough part of DC at 2 in the morning on a school night. What I'm trying to get at, is that the poster/image acts as somewhat of a vehicle for me to re-experience the crazy time I had at the Lupe concert.

Thinking about this reminded me of our our reading on Walter Benjamin and his discussion of aura and mechanical reproduction. Benjamin argues that "one-of-a-kind artwork has a particular aura... [and] the authenticity of the aura cannot be reproduced" (196, Practices of Looking). When Benjamin discusses this it is originally regarding images in photography, however the same applies to the poster as a whole. For a photo, this aura resides in the time and place of its creation: where the picture was taken, at what moment it was taken, and the experience of the person taking the photo. For me, this same aura exists within my poster. Seeing the worn poster with its tears and peeling reminds me of the circumstances of when I captured it, as one would capture an image with a camera. Additionally, the poster keeps its "authenticity" because its particular aura has not been reproduced. For example, if someone were to give me a new copy of the exact same poster I would not so easily associate with the concert because the tears and peels would be absent. Additionally, even though the poster itself was mass produced and many copies of them exist, the authenticity pertains solely to the meeting of the image with the admirer. In a sense, I have taken a mass produced image and identified a unique and original aura within it. This process, I believe, is one that is common in the age of mass media when almost every image is mass produced.

Nudity and the "Feminine" in Advertising

Be warned this is my first Blog post EVER!

I've always found it interesting how nudity in American culture is such a taboo in mainstream adds. I have chosen an advertisement for Modess feminine pads (dating from the 1950's onwards to about 1970) as reflected from the French and from the American stand point. In the French add a woman (one add) stands serenly in her bedroom completly nude and the American women (multiple adds) are posed and contrived in very elegant gowns and settings covered from head to toe so to speak. The French add seems to say menstruation is a natural part of a woman's life and that there is nothing to be ashamed of and very accepting of the fact, with maturity. Whereas the American add screams we should keep it hidden at all times and be sanitary, compartmentalizing the female as if it is a dirty thing we must keep in secret. Could this be compared to Pierce in the sense that the naked body of a woman in advertising tastefully done as a symbol of nature in one culture namely French is viewed entirely different then that of which American culture finds acceptable or tasteful? You just don't see naked women in adds in America unless it's in the adult section. A little on a tangent for the following...it's OK to tape your but cheeks together in a "Jackass" episode or have naked girls flashing there breasts all over some flick gratuitously and without reason, of which there are many, or rape scenes for that matter, another staple in the Media forum of cinema.

Cultural perspectives in advertising and Media do play a huge role on the collective and individual conscious with or without our knowledge. Clearly the adds Song posted for American Apparel are not nude but the girl may as well be, which if she kept those poses would be considered pornographic! It sends a very objectified message, and yet there they are for all the world to see. And what's more it has nothing to do with clothes. It's an image of "sexuality" imposed on young girls and women overall. While one is selling clothes and the other feminine pads I find it absurd that it's dirty to have your period but not dirty for a pubescent girl to suck on a lolli pop with your legs open for millions to view. Hey at home do what you like I'm no prude, but what are we selling here?

I promise to get better at this. Here's the link you will have to click on the French version once you reach. It will open on the American adds first. http://www.mum.org/modbec.htm