This semester has been a very interesting one indeed. CS has solidified a lot of my notions and ideas about our world as well as opening my realm of perception to many new ones. Learning a lot of the terminology about popular and high culture, the different schools of thought, and aspects of the panopticon has undoubtedly helped me, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. Post-modernism was of special interest to me. I chose to do my presentation on it with only a glimmer of pre-held understanding; with no inkling whatsoever about how important it is to me. I've been using post-modernist techniques in my work for a long time now without even knowing it. Learning about it as a whole has given me a better perspective on my work and the tools I need to re-evaluate my plan of attack. This, coupled with further elucidation of the deteriorating state of our culture, has given me an extremely amplified drive to produce cultural artifacts of meaning.
For those curious..
www.myspace.com/inocula
www.myspace.com/ixindustrial
...just a glimpse.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Last Blog
After taking a semester in cultural studies I have been introduced to many things that I never really looked at before. It seems to me that there is a lot more of everything to basically everything. I Can't really look at everything around me the same without having to question it a million times, especially TV. I love TV and I would never question it, but now I just look at it differently with a little more questions. I thought TV was so good for me, but now it seems like I've been part of a system that has been influencing me for such a long time and i had no idea. It is crazy that I think like this now. But the world is a different place since the semester started. It will be hard to look at the world the same.
fist pump for CS!
Since switching my major to Cultural Studies, I've become increasingly more and more excited about the rest of my education here at Columbia. This class has opened up my mind a lot and taught me about things that I thought I already knew. I now find myself relating various aspects in my life to what we've discussed this semester. Probably the most prevalent idea that we discussed in class that has really made me question things is the idea of context, with a dash of subjectivity.
Another class that I'm in this semester is a seminar on Toni Morrison novels. In all of the books we have read for that class, Morrison plays with the barrier between good and evil. For example, in "Sula" a mother kills her son. In any normal situation, I would think this is a terrible thing. But because of the extremely heavy emphasis on how everything is so context-based in our class, I was able to examine that scene in the novel without a closed mind. I was able to recognize that she killed her son out of love, not because she hated him or anything. She loved him too much to let him live anymore, because he wasn't doing anything in his life besides trying to maintain being a child (at age 34). With that, I am still able to recognize that in another context a mother killing her son really would be an awful thing.
I really appreciate all that I've taken in from this semester and will truly miss this class and all the different minds that made it so involving.
Another class that I'm in this semester is a seminar on Toni Morrison novels. In all of the books we have read for that class, Morrison plays with the barrier between good and evil. For example, in "Sula" a mother kills her son. In any normal situation, I would think this is a terrible thing. But because of the extremely heavy emphasis on how everything is so context-based in our class, I was able to examine that scene in the novel without a closed mind. I was able to recognize that she killed her son out of love, not because she hated him or anything. She loved him too much to let him live anymore, because he wasn't doing anything in his life besides trying to maintain being a child (at age 34). With that, I am still able to recognize that in another context a mother killing her son really would be an awful thing.
I really appreciate all that I've taken in from this semester and will truly miss this class and all the different minds that made it so involving.
Final Blog
It was very interesting to learn that, there were names and meanings to things we see everyday. For instance i didn't know that the word "capital" had so many meanings. All semester long, what ever was taught to me, I reshaped in terms to make sense to me. Like economic capital (people that flat out got money),Linguistic capital(people that have the gift of gab) ect. (I hope that's right) I loved the fact that I could read a chapter in Theory Toolbox and think I fully understood what the chapter was about, then come to class and emily shows me my understanding of the chapter was B.S. HAHAHA!. Because the author can not control how people understand the text. (At least I learned somethingHAHAHA)But all and all I'm glad I took this cultural studies class. Because now I can see things in a new light and see things for what they truly are.
cultural review
I think the way I watch television now has changed dramatically. Before I never looked for high culture or pop culture themes, but now I find myself looking for such themes. Now I look at certain shows and and try to analysis what is the intent of the show. Before I just used to watch a show to see if it was interesting or not. The whole chapter about high and pop culture really made me look at shows differently. I now have a clear understanding of what producers are trying to convey to the audience. Before I never thought about a show being high or pop culture. In class when "The Cosby Show" was pointed out as being high culture, that expanded my thinking. I could fully understand why "The Cosby Show" would be considered high culture, and a show like "Flavor of Love" would be pop culture. These fundametnal differences are what changed my perception. I understand now the intent of the producers. Before I never looked, and I really didn't care. Now I understand and perceive things differently.
Re-thinking Education
FINAL BLOG:
After reading this blog question about a week ago, I was a pretty unsure of what I wanted to write about. I was having a hard time pinpointing one thing that I have reconsidered as a result of cultural studies throughout this semester. I so realized that the reason why I was having such trouble trying to figure out what I wanted to write about was because I have found myself reevaluating my entire education during this semester. I feel like a common and predominant theme throughout the class and in The Theory Toolbox has been to constantly reconsider your preconceived notions. Now, this is something that has been discussed a little bit in class but I think I have found myself questioning the value of education and especially high education.
I think the main part of this that I am concerned with is the ways in which the school system chooses the information that will be covered in class. The power is given to someone in each system, and this person ultimately has control over what information is shared with the children, but more importantly what information will not be shared. This seems very flawed to me. I’m not sure if I can envision a specific model of a system that I think would work better, but I’m sure that the fact that children are fed information as absolute truth is wrong in many ways. These children need to be aware that everything is indeed subjective and contextual and that they should constantly be questioning the information that is being fed to them instead of simply eating it all up without any notion of personal opinion or identity.
I think I have come to question this idea through our lessons about authorship and also through our discussion of what it means to be privileged enough to go to college. We must constantly re-think our ideas about things, as they have probable been fed to us through a feeding tube without our knowledge.
After reading this blog question about a week ago, I was a pretty unsure of what I wanted to write about. I was having a hard time pinpointing one thing that I have reconsidered as a result of cultural studies throughout this semester. I so realized that the reason why I was having such trouble trying to figure out what I wanted to write about was because I have found myself reevaluating my entire education during this semester. I feel like a common and predominant theme throughout the class and in The Theory Toolbox has been to constantly reconsider your preconceived notions. Now, this is something that has been discussed a little bit in class but I think I have found myself questioning the value of education and especially high education.
I think the main part of this that I am concerned with is the ways in which the school system chooses the information that will be covered in class. The power is given to someone in each system, and this person ultimately has control over what information is shared with the children, but more importantly what information will not be shared. This seems very flawed to me. I’m not sure if I can envision a specific model of a system that I think would work better, but I’m sure that the fact that children are fed information as absolute truth is wrong in many ways. These children need to be aware that everything is indeed subjective and contextual and that they should constantly be questioning the information that is being fed to them instead of simply eating it all up without any notion of personal opinion or identity.
I think I have come to question this idea through our lessons about authorship and also through our discussion of what it means to be privileged enough to go to college. We must constantly re-think our ideas about things, as they have probable been fed to us through a feeding tube without our knowledge.
Review of the semester
I guess I could sum up my C.C. experience with the classic phrase, "the more things change, the more things stay the same." The majority of things we discussed in class were completely new to me, although I did have several preconcieved notions on things like class, race, and subjective history. The thing though is that the Theory Toolbox and all our discussions didn't really sway my opinion on anything. All it really did was make me a slightly more informed asshole. So when I make fun of my Italian friend Phil, I can now say I'm pointing out his "Italianicity," and then proceed to point out every detail that makes him Italian like we did to that advertisement (albeit in a more comical and slightly bigotted fashion).
But all joking aside, it was a great class and was worth paying for (the prom/wedding thing was cool). I enjoy it when I'm given an opportunity to look at things in a different light, and that's basically all this class was about.
Which reminds me. I still think that one picture was a volcano, and NOT a nuke going off God damnit!
But all joking aside, it was a great class and was worth paying for (the prom/wedding thing was cool). I enjoy it when I'm given an opportunity to look at things in a different light, and that's basically all this class was about.
Which reminds me. I still think that one picture was a volcano, and NOT a nuke going off God damnit!
Adbusters take on Advertisements
The advertisements created by Adbusters are a play on the motives and agency of the brands who have made a name on their marketing and ads. They expose the label's namesakes and poke fun at the absurdity of their claims. Absolut, Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein all have an enormous amount of power and agency in regards to society. Their presence has impacted media culture and the forms of marketing used. This uniqueness has only increased their agency.
Tommy Hilfiger has become famous for being the fashion label of "America;" however, Hilfiger's idea of middle America and the country is usually something that resembles the Hamptons rather than rural America. Adbusters version strips down the ad and cuts through the bullshit to show us what the ad would really look like if it were to portray the message Hilfiger attempts to deliver.
The Absolut ad debunks the myth that in an Absolut world, anything is possible. As we've all heard, excessive drinking can lead to male impotence. So why then do liquor companies display an image of a man who drinks a specific alcoholic beverage as a sort of pimp like figure? In Adbusters Absolut world, not everything is possible.
Calvin Klein's underwear ads are infamous for being raunchy. In fact, numerous famous people have gotten their start in Klein's risque ads. Usually the men in the ads are very well endowed, almost to the point where it's obviously fake. Adbusters ad, the man is looking down his underwear, perhaps astounded just as much as the people who consume the ads.
All three of these brands/labels displayed in the ads have chosen the type of image they'd like to convey to the general public. Their billboards are plastered along highways and on buildings and bus stops throughout cities. The perpetuated labels and connotations towards these brands exist because of the brands choices and actions taken. This is their subjective agency. They attain these labels and reputations because of their associations.
Tommy Hilfiger has become famous for being the fashion label of "America;" however, Hilfiger's idea of middle America and the country is usually something that resembles the Hamptons rather than rural America. Adbusters version strips down the ad and cuts through the bullshit to show us what the ad would really look like if it were to portray the message Hilfiger attempts to deliver.
The Absolut ad debunks the myth that in an Absolut world, anything is possible. As we've all heard, excessive drinking can lead to male impotence. So why then do liquor companies display an image of a man who drinks a specific alcoholic beverage as a sort of pimp like figure? In Adbusters Absolut world, not everything is possible.
Calvin Klein's underwear ads are infamous for being raunchy. In fact, numerous famous people have gotten their start in Klein's risque ads. Usually the men in the ads are very well endowed, almost to the point where it's obviously fake. Adbusters ad, the man is looking down his underwear, perhaps astounded just as much as the people who consume the ads.
All three of these brands/labels displayed in the ads have chosen the type of image they'd like to convey to the general public. Their billboards are plastered along highways and on buildings and bus stops throughout cities. The perpetuated labels and connotations towards these brands exist because of the brands choices and actions taken. This is their subjective agency. They attain these labels and reputations because of their associations.
Review of Semester
It’s amazing to see how much academia effects the way in which we live our lives. It didn’t take me until this class to realize the major control academia had on our lives. From what we learn to what do we I am just completely amazed at the power of academia.
But is academia always "good" for us. I began to ask myself this question after a class we had this semester. What would happen if academia disappeared? In the end though you begin to realize that this is how we structured our society. We had a group of people who were considered elite and had them decide for us what would be considered of importance for our minds. And in the end you also begin to understand the way in which society as a whole works, including the subject you become.
But is academia always "good" for us. I began to ask myself this question after a class we had this semester. What would happen if academia disappeared? In the end though you begin to realize that this is how we structured our society. We had a group of people who were considered elite and had them decide for us what would be considered of importance for our minds. And in the end you also begin to understand the way in which society as a whole works, including the subject you become.
Final Blog Post
Cultural studies has made me rethink a lot over the course of this semester, and frankly I am very happy it has. I came into this class a young ignorant sophomore, but am leaving with my horizons broadened and the seeing the world in a different light. Frankly, the thing that has changed most for me is my own lifestyle and goals. I used to be so caught up with materialism and money. But after we studied things week after week and how big corporations own everything and I realized how everything is culturally connected. It makes me want to continue what I am doing (to become a filmmaker) but to do it with the things we learned in mind. To help others realize that everything is a product of something else, nothing is just what it is. I began to think and change my ideas the second I entered the class. I knew it was going to be my type of class as I love discussion classes, immediately after our first session I knew that this class would change and shape my thought process. The whole theory tool box really was interesting, but the chapters on race, and popular culture really intrigued me. It helped me to shape this new meaning because it opened up different views on these topics I had thought I knew about, but after being introduced to these new ideas and theories I was able to see how intricate everything is, and nothing is black or white. Being able to look at the world with my culture analysis is such a great tool to have, I am able to think and question almost everything and not just take it as it is. This class and study is not just a good tool, but a lifelong experience I will keep with me.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Cultural Studies: A semester in review
I remember it was around the fifth week of class that I was thinking about some theory that I can’t remember and I found something that related to it really easily and then I found that it related to another theory as well. I thought, wow that’s a coincidence but then it drew in my mind that maybe it wasn’t a coincidence that I could easily relate something to multiple theories and ideologies but maybe just maybe everything was all connected. Maybe it wasn’t that it was easy to relate a bunch of things to a theory, maybe the theory was everywhere and that’s why it was so easy to find things that related to it Freaky.
It was shortly after that that made me question my previous assumptions and understandings. On discussion we had that gave rise to my reconsideration was the discussion on prom. That was pretty messed up. I also don’t like the Author System anymore. Sure, Academia may be a little more educated than I am but who are they to tell what’s important to study and trust to have cultural capital. That’s a choice I want to make myself. What I’ve ultimately come to understand from this class is that everything, and I mean everything is culturally constructed and thus can be changed and shaped in a true or false image. That’s pretty deep stuff right there and only a little scary.
It was shortly after that that made me question my previous assumptions and understandings. On discussion we had that gave rise to my reconsideration was the discussion on prom. That was pretty messed up. I also don’t like the Author System anymore. Sure, Academia may be a little more educated than I am but who are they to tell what’s important to study and trust to have cultural capital. That’s a choice I want to make myself. What I’ve ultimately come to understand from this class is that everything, and I mean everything is culturally constructed and thus can be changed and shaped in a true or false image. That’s pretty deep stuff right there and only a little scary.
Monday, May 5, 2008
what are these ads really saying?
The 11.1 ad for Absolute Vodka is ironic, here they are trying to sell their product yet they are reminding their customers that after a night of drinking they might be unable to perform the way that they want and feel. This could be a good warning for thier customers, the perfect reminder that after a night of drinking you might not really want to go home and hook up with someone but the intensity one might feel after drinking would usually result in going home with someone. How many times have you heard, i wish i wouldnt have had sex with someone last night, i was so drunk! But at the same time, everyone knows that if guys have too much to drink they might not be able to perform later that night when it comes down to that moment. Either way i feel this ad is using irony to remind its customers and viewers that drinking too much can result in many bad decisions, and embarassment, they want you to enjoy the night and enjoy your drinks but not go too far overboard. As for ad 11.2 i really dont understand this one at all, im not sure if its tryign to say be a sheep and follow what others do and buy Tommy? Or because Tommy is known for being a very American brand, maybe with the flag and sheep and barn setting its reminding the viewer of the true Americaness of Tommy? im not sure i do not understand this at all. As for 11.3, this one made me laugh right away, the ad has a man in just his underwear peaking where the sun dont shine, with the caption reading "OBSESSION." Men have always been obsessed with their male parts and size and how they perform with it, Calvin Kline is just reminding their customers and viewers with their underwear its will be a good obsession and that everyman will look and fill the underwear out perfectly and make not only them obsessed with it but everyone else!
Adbusters and Agency
The point of the three Adbuster ads might be to illustrate the subjective agency of popular ad campaigns by re-creating the ads with an ironic twist. Two of the spoofs are directed at the masculine force of advertisements and the male demographic the ads are aimed towards. The Absolut Vodka ad shows the subjectiveness of the idea of drinking alcohol. The one-sided glamorization of drinking hard liquor is challenged with the headline, "Absolut Impotence," under a wilting bottle of vodka. Cause too much drinking makes your dick limp just as the overuse of unjustified claims allows the advertisers to manipulate their viewer's perception of agency.
The Tommy Hilfinger ad, showing a cluster of sheep under an American flag, plays off the all-American, hard-working, "God's Country", farmland images that are often a main theme for Hilfinger ads. I interpret the spoof as making an analogy between viewers/consumers of advertising to the follow-without-question stereotype of sheep. We lose the perspective that we, as consumers, posses choices when it comes to what we wear and where we purchase it.
The Clavin Kline spoof ad has the image of a buff dude looking down his boxers at his penis, under the massive headline, "Obsession." What is Calvin Kline trying to say when they use white, muscular/masculine men in only their underwear to sell their products? Will it make my penis bigger? Or even help to create an image of myself that says I must have something in common with Marky Mark's muscular bulge if I wear the underpants he has on in an ad? It's subjective how someone might view an ad with a manly-man stripped to his undies. The gay population would view it much differently than hetero-bodybuilders. Anyone can make an attempt at shaping a person's concept of their agency, manipulating them to act a certain way. Or we can realize how subjective agency really is and enable ourselves by making more well informed, thought-out decisions.
Adbusters
The first picture I saw kind of makes fun of men and is suggesting that liquor makes men have the feeling of wanting to have sex but can't really have sex because of the liquor. Thats a funny way to look at it. I would say that the liquor company is saying you shouldn't drink or that it is making fun of all the people that buy their product. I'm not absolutely sure what the liquor company is trying to do but it seems to work if its in the chapter. The picture with the sheep is probably just saying that whoever wears their clothed, they are wearing a piece of a sheep. Their doesn't seem to be any negativity except for that your stealing sheep fur which can grow back. It is a pretty cool picture so maybe that is why it works. The third picture is just creepy. I don't want to see a man in his underwear looking at his crouch. That company is just being weird. I don't know who the intended audience is suppose to be but it must work. Maybe they think that the world is ready to see this and that it should be acceptable. I don't know why it has to be an obsession like that, I'm sure that their are healthy obsessions
Agency/Constraint hypocracy
Ok, so we all know agency is the power to act, and constraint limits actions and yadda yadda yadda. We all also know that most of these constraints and even the decisions themselves are a completely social construct. But does anyone else find it kind of strange that most of these "constraints" are things we put on ourselves? And then with agency we try to fight those constraints. Perfect example is lawyers. We form a country, set up a HUGE system of laws and rules, and then devout an entire field of study (along with several careers) to finding ways to bend those rules. In my opinion, thats a good example of the whole constraint/agency thing. But back to my beef with this whole thing. Why does humanity as a whole seem to enjoy creating order, rules, and constraints about as much as it enjoys tearing all of them down? I mean look at the mess in Iraq and the history behind it. We had peace after WWII...in a way. There were constraints against fighting Russia DIRECTLY, but nobody had any qualms with going into 3rd world countries, fucking everything up, and setting up a puppet government which will later bite us in the ass....or maybe we just support this guy named Osama back in the 80's and give him an assload of weaponry and then act surprised when he turns on us, I wasn't there at the time, I don't know what really happened, I'm just saying what I heard. But the point is that back then it's like we were making situations that would create more cause for agency, like we thought we were gonna get bored later on. In these days the agency is seen like this wonderful thing because action = progress (example: G.W. is the "DECIDER"), but in all honesty I would say constraint saves a hell of a lot more lives than agency. So to sum it up, humanity (not just society) creates all the constraints that limit their actions so that they create the agency they thrive off of so much. And that is my rant.
agency
i guess agency in ourselves constrains certain things. i really can't see how something or someone is constrained but is enabled at the same time. i guess if its enabled it has certain aspects of constraint. Agency is an escape from the limits imposed on us so being constrained and enabled in a way go hand in hand in this metaphor. Your enabled to escape, because you want to get way from the imposed constraint. Agency I think has both these subjects in its category. I think one can escape from presupposed imprisonment because they are enabled to do so. When one is constrained they want to find a way or enable themselves to escape. when your stuck in a nowhere relationship what is the point of sticking around. i personally leave this type of situation because it feels like your in a position you don't want to be in. instead of working things out, which sometimes takes a long time, one escapes or is enabled to get out of the situation. i think when one is in a nowhere relationship agency helps the person recognize the situation. in a way agency puts what one is feeling in perspective.
single4life
If agency is the power to do something, it makes perfect sense that it is both constrained and enabled by context. First of all, the notion of context is the overpowering factor. Everything is in context, so our agency has the ability to be multiple things at the same time. "Isn't agency an escape from the limits imposed on us?" -No. In essence, sure, but one must remember that the definition of agency (the power to do something) has a silent/understood "in context" at the end.
I think most people in a relationship in general deal with the issue of the limitations of their agency. For someone to get out of a bad relationship, they are enabling their agency because they are changing their situation, with the power they have to do that something. Very often, people in bad relationships feel that their context is much too constraining to enable their agency- so the power works both ways.
I think most people in a relationship in general deal with the issue of the limitations of their agency. For someone to get out of a bad relationship, they are enabling their agency because they are changing their situation, with the power they have to do that something. Very often, people in bad relationships feel that their context is much too constraining to enable their agency- so the power works both ways.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
how many times can laura use the word constraint in one blog entry
What does it mean to be enabled and constrained by our own agency? We must first recall that our agency only exists as it does in a social context. Much like what we learned on subjectivity, we must accept that self identity and free will are secular and yet permanently associated. We develop a self identity based almost completely on subjectivity and social constructions, and we do indeed posses free will as sentient beings, but under the same social confines. One has the free will to do almost anything physically possible-but anything one can think of exists in their minds because of social influence. For example, we have the free will to go to school, or to not go to school. However, these choices would hardly exists were it not for society developing the concept of institutionalized education. In agency's terms, we are enabled to choose whether or not we want to go to school, but in the same breath we are constrained to the mere definitions set down by society as to what going or not going to school even means. We are constrained, in the sense that we don't have a choice in being denoted as "one who goes to school" or "one who doesn't go to school". We are constrained under the constructs of the society in which we live, above all, because we have no free will in choosing whether or not we even want to exist in said society.
To address the "bad relationship" example, one's agency is being constrained, and in this constrain, one has the ability, is enabled, to escape said constraint. Escape is not possible without constraint. The word "escape" would have never come about had not someone in a society in history felt constraint of agency and then used that agency to "escape". All of these terms and ideas have to exists contextually, meaning that without this context, agency wouldn't-nor would it have a reason to exist.
To address the "bad relationship" example, one's agency is being constrained, and in this constrain, one has the ability, is enabled, to escape said constraint. Escape is not possible without constraint. The word "escape" would have never come about had not someone in a society in history felt constraint of agency and then used that agency to "escape". All of these terms and ideas have to exists contextually, meaning that without this context, agency wouldn't-nor would it have a reason to exist.
The Angency of Mass-Consumed Products
In response to question #2 on pg 196
Each of these spoof ads makes some sort of statement about the realities of the product they are selling. Perhaps the creator(s) of these image were out to make people realize what really comes with the products they are selling. Each product (Absolut, Tommy Hilfiger (or Hilfinger as the ad reads), and Obsession) are all widely consumed by the masses, and these ads force people to think about why they are using the products instead of simply using them because everyone else does. Each of these images gives a look into the subjective agency of the products; instead of howing us what the product is, they are showing us what the product does to us after consumption.
The first ad, for “Absolut Impotence” is a spoof of an ad for Absolut Vodka. It is very similar to a real Absolut ad: a blank backdrop with a single bottle of Absolut dripping with condensation and under the bottle reads the brand name. However, in this ad the bottle is slightly collapsed, resembling a flaccid penis and instead of the brand name, the slogan is “Absolut Impotence.” I have seen a similar spoof of a Marlboro ad in which the cowboy's cigarette is bent and hangs towards the ground. This image makes real the agency of Absolut; that (like Shakespeare's quote) alcohol will make men want to have sex and not be able to get an erection.
The next ad, for “Tommy Hilfinger” is reminiscent of many Hilfiger ads I have seen in the past. Many of there ads are shot on a farm and usually include a big-ass American flag. The difference is that instead of scantly-clad sexy models sporting Hilfiger designs, we see a small flock of sheep. This image tells us a great deal about the agency of Hilfiger clothing, or perhaps the agencies we perform if we choose to where his designs. Sheep are often used as a symbol for conformity; they all look the same and tend to stay in their flock. So, this spoof ad is making the point that Hilfiger sells many clothes that look very much alike and to wear them means accepting your status as just another sheep i the flock.
The third and final ad is a spoof of a Calvin Klien ad for the men's fragrance “Obsession.” Most Calvin Klien ads that I have seen are very similar to this one: a plain backdrop with a very sexy, wearing-barely-anything super-slim or -buff model, usually in black and white. This ad, for a fragrance (which I wouldn't have known if I hadn't looked up the name using Google) made for men shows a very buff model wearing only underpants. He, unlike models in legitimate Klien ads, is using his hand to pull back the band of his underwear in order to be able to stare at his genitalia. This ad shows very clearly about the agency one performs when they decide to where this fragrance: they become obsessed with themselves. The model in the picture clearly can't get enough of himself and puts a great amount of effort into making sure he looks perfect. If you're going to spend around $70 dollars for one fucking bottle of cologne, you should probably learn how to pay attention to someone or something other than yourself.
Each of these spoof ads makes some sort of statement about the realities of the product they are selling. Perhaps the creator(s) of these image were out to make people realize what really comes with the products they are selling. Each product (Absolut, Tommy Hilfiger (or Hilfinger as the ad reads), and Obsession) are all widely consumed by the masses, and these ads force people to think about why they are using the products instead of simply using them because everyone else does. Each of these images gives a look into the subjective agency of the products; instead of howing us what the product is, they are showing us what the product does to us after consumption.
The first ad, for “Absolut Impotence” is a spoof of an ad for Absolut Vodka. It is very similar to a real Absolut ad: a blank backdrop with a single bottle of Absolut dripping with condensation and under the bottle reads the brand name. However, in this ad the bottle is slightly collapsed, resembling a flaccid penis and instead of the brand name, the slogan is “Absolut Impotence.” I have seen a similar spoof of a Marlboro ad in which the cowboy's cigarette is bent and hangs towards the ground. This image makes real the agency of Absolut; that (like Shakespeare's quote) alcohol will make men want to have sex and not be able to get an erection.
The next ad, for “Tommy Hilfinger” is reminiscent of many Hilfiger ads I have seen in the past. Many of there ads are shot on a farm and usually include a big-ass American flag. The difference is that instead of scantly-clad sexy models sporting Hilfiger designs, we see a small flock of sheep. This image tells us a great deal about the agency of Hilfiger clothing, or perhaps the agencies we perform if we choose to where his designs. Sheep are often used as a symbol for conformity; they all look the same and tend to stay in their flock. So, this spoof ad is making the point that Hilfiger sells many clothes that look very much alike and to wear them means accepting your status as just another sheep i the flock.
The third and final ad is a spoof of a Calvin Klien ad for the men's fragrance “Obsession.” Most Calvin Klien ads that I have seen are very similar to this one: a plain backdrop with a very sexy, wearing-barely-anything super-slim or -buff model, usually in black and white. This ad, for a fragrance (which I wouldn't have known if I hadn't looked up the name using Google) made for men shows a very buff model wearing only underpants. He, unlike models in legitimate Klien ads, is using his hand to pull back the band of his underwear in order to be able to stare at his genitalia. This ad shows very clearly about the agency one performs when they decide to where this fragrance: they become obsessed with themselves. The model in the picture clearly can't get enough of himself and puts a great amount of effort into making sure he looks perfect. If you're going to spend around $70 dollars for one fucking bottle of cologne, you should probably learn how to pay attention to someone or something other than yourself.
Agency
The sentence "Our agency is both constrained and enabled by the contexts in which we find ourselves" deals with situations in which even though we have limited power too we can do something to change it. Bordwell and Thompson bring up interesting points on how most of the things we do in our lives we have no control over. But it is our decisions on these non-controllable encounters that really affect our lives. The true question comes down to how can an action be enabled by something that constrains it. Lets take an example of trying to see a sold out movie (kind of lame but it gets to the point). With this constraint you have really two decisions. Do you go see another movie or do you try and sneak in to find an empty seat? This principle plays off a number of these so-called constraints that affect us everyday and the agencies we use to get around them.
Being stuck in a relationship that you know is not even close to working out has many constraints. In order to get out you have to use your agency, unless you want your agency to basically never come back in that relationship. If you don’t end up using your agency it will end up becoming limited and eventually come to a halt.
Being stuck in a relationship that you know is not even close to working out has many constraints. In order to get out you have to use your agency, unless you want your agency to basically never come back in that relationship. If you don’t end up using your agency it will end up becoming limited and eventually come to a halt.
agency ads
the absolut vodka ad works because it catches your attention. it's not very often that you see a bottle that looks as if it has been scrunched up in this way. also, the fact that the ad says, "absolut impotence," makes it kind of funny. why? i can't answer that one. it only seems as though sensitive topics such as that are just funny because that is considered a flaw, and some may even say "less of a man." it also says that drinking too much will provoke a man's sexual desire but will take away the ability to perform. that makes it funny, too. what makes it reflect subjective agency is that the ad is doing something. the ad is clearly making a point and saying, "be careful how much you drink. it might have the opposite effect than what you want it to." It is subjective agency also because none of us are in control of the social spaces we inhabit...especially when we are drinking. keeping that in mind, this ad is speaking to people, or more specifically, men who drink. this being said...men are more likely to pay attention to this ad and really think about it (and women as well).
the tommy hilfiger ad looks like it is saying, "hey, be like everyone else. look like everyone else, and wear tommy so that you can look like everyone else..." i think this works because it's quite a clear statement that is saying, "be yourself. don't just blend in. be different. don't just wear tommy cause everyone else is wearing it." the image of the sheep to me, always symbolizes being like the mainstream/being like everyone else. the american flag in the background kind of goes with a lot of tommy ads so i think it works because it looks like a tommy ad, until you really start reading into it. this ad reflects subjective agency by pointing out that conforming is something that happens and often we don't have complete control over it. we may start dressing like people we work with or hang out with and not even conciously realize it.
the calvin klein ad works because it again gets your attention. here's a nice looking man looking down his shorts. you may look at this and start wondering why. so in this case, by doing this, this man is provoking attention and further thought. is he self concious about his body? is he making sure things are ok down there? i think the point they are making with this is that everybody is concious about their body...even models. this reflects subjective agency in the sense that this man is doing something. in doing something, he is making history.
Monday, April 28, 2008
"Out of Reach" - No Way, Jose!
I have many goals in my life that I want to accomplish, I don't really have like one main goal that I want to do. I want to sooooo many things before I die. You only get to live once. Might as well do as much as you can in your life, because who knows...we might never have a chance to do it again! But, if you ask me what is my career goal, like what I want to do in my life when I'm all grown up as an adult. I would have to say, my career goal is having my own proper nightclub, dont know where. Haven't decided yet, but I do have a list of places where to put it at. I actually would like to have two jobs -- during the night (weekend) I would open the club, let people come in and party and just have fun. Down in the basement I would have a huge recording studio, recording music, mixing, and many more things. I'm getting support from all of friends, family members, teachers I've had over the past, other recording engineers that already have experience in the recording business. You have to stay confident and don't let anyone tell you wrong or push you down from your dreams.
A good movie that I suggest anyone should watch is, "Hustle & Flow" -- most people say its mostly about Hoes and Pimps, but its more to that. Actor, Terrence Howard play a role of a pimp/hustler/rapper, his name is Dejay. He wonders if the life he has right now is it..Only when he trades contraband for a keyboard and bumps into his old schoolfriend Key (played by Anthony Anderson) does he see a way out by laying down some tracks and fulfilling his dream. Ofcourse in the path that you take there are going to be obstacles that are not easy, but don't let that stop you from going after your dreams and goals. I'm not going to tell your more about this movie, It's a good response for this question. CHECK IT OUT!
I don't consider anything out of reach, no way jose! Living in the carribean was when I got introduced to recording, mixing, editing, and all this neat things to do with music. It was there when I have decided what I wanted to do in my life and made some goals. Some of my friends were rich and had connection in the music business, they knew somebody that had a recording studio, radio station, or just someone famous. I did not, my friend and I would make music at his house and send them out to our friends and try to put some of our songs on the radio. Actually I never had the chance to hear one of our songs play on the radio station down in Curacao, because I left to come here. But, one of my friends from there helped me out with a lot of things, he made it happen. It's just too bad that I never got to hear it on the radio.
I never had any connection to the music business and I still don't. But, that is still not stopping me from following my dreams. That's also why I decided to come to Chicago, city. A lot of opportunities, but also difficult because a lot of people are not used to the music genre of Reggaeton, in the carribean you hear that all over the places and everyone loves it even people that don't speak spanish likes the music. Let's see what happens....
A good movie that I suggest anyone should watch is, "Hustle & Flow" -- most people say its mostly about Hoes and Pimps, but its more to that. Actor, Terrence Howard play a role of a pimp/hustler/rapper, his name is Dejay. He wonders if the life he has right now is it..Only when he trades contraband for a keyboard and bumps into his old schoolfriend Key (played by Anthony Anderson) does he see a way out by laying down some tracks and fulfilling his dream. Ofcourse in the path that you take there are going to be obstacles that are not easy, but don't let that stop you from going after your dreams and goals. I'm not going to tell your more about this movie, It's a good response for this question. CHECK IT OUT!
I don't consider anything out of reach, no way jose! Living in the carribean was when I got introduced to recording, mixing, editing, and all this neat things to do with music. It was there when I have decided what I wanted to do in my life and made some goals. Some of my friends were rich and had connection in the music business, they knew somebody that had a recording studio, radio station, or just someone famous. I did not, my friend and I would make music at his house and send them out to our friends and try to put some of our songs on the radio. Actually I never had the chance to hear one of our songs play on the radio station down in Curacao, because I left to come here. But, one of my friends from there helped me out with a lot of things, he made it happen. It's just too bad that I never got to hear it on the radio.
I never had any connection to the music business and I still don't. But, that is still not stopping me from following my dreams. That's also why I decided to come to Chicago, city. A lot of opportunities, but also difficult because a lot of people are not used to the music genre of Reggaeton, in the carribean you hear that all over the places and everyone loves it even people that don't speak spanish likes the music. Let's see what happens....
"Do or do not. There is no try."
Question 2:
"Goals" is a much better word to describe my aspirations than "Dreams." The term 'goal' means that there is an end point that is to be reached, rather than 'dream' just because a hypothetical situation. A huge goal of mine was to go to the exact college that I wanted to, which I did. I have a lot of problems with the idea that things are "out of reach." On a personal level, I know what I want and I get what I want. I don't mean that in a bratty way, but rather in the sense that I will do whatever it takes to get what I'm striving for. Yoda said it best, "Do or do not. There is no try." Obviously there are other factors that come into play, but I believe that if you truly want something, you do have the means of attaining it. Even to the point as extreme of becoming president, when you weren't born in the US. It is a law that our president must be born here, but if an individual wants it bad enough I think that they have the ability to change that law. People fall back on the idea of things being out of reach because they don't want to work hard or any harder for it. I recognize that I have this viewpoint largely because I am a middle-class white female. If I want a job in a childrens day care, I will more than likely have a much better chance of getting it than a 40 year-old african american male. The fact is that no one is equal, some people have the entire world to their advantage, others have nothing. But I think that if you really and truly want something bad enough, you do have the ability to achieve it.
Columbia was the school that I was set on, and it doesn't matter to me how expensive it is. I have loans and I'm completely ok with that because I think it's ridiculous to not do something or have something you want because of money. People make choices and sacrifices. You can find a way to do what you want. Our goals are right in front of us, but it's our choice if we want to work hard enough to achieve them.
"Goals" is a much better word to describe my aspirations than "Dreams." The term 'goal' means that there is an end point that is to be reached, rather than 'dream' just because a hypothetical situation. A huge goal of mine was to go to the exact college that I wanted to, which I did. I have a lot of problems with the idea that things are "out of reach." On a personal level, I know what I want and I get what I want. I don't mean that in a bratty way, but rather in the sense that I will do whatever it takes to get what I'm striving for. Yoda said it best, "Do or do not. There is no try." Obviously there are other factors that come into play, but I believe that if you truly want something, you do have the means of attaining it. Even to the point as extreme of becoming president, when you weren't born in the US. It is a law that our president must be born here, but if an individual wants it bad enough I think that they have the ability to change that law. People fall back on the idea of things being out of reach because they don't want to work hard or any harder for it. I recognize that I have this viewpoint largely because I am a middle-class white female. If I want a job in a childrens day care, I will more than likely have a much better chance of getting it than a 40 year-old african american male. The fact is that no one is equal, some people have the entire world to their advantage, others have nothing. But I think that if you really and truly want something bad enough, you do have the ability to achieve it.
Columbia was the school that I was set on, and it doesn't matter to me how expensive it is. I have loans and I'm completely ok with that because I think it's ridiculous to not do something or have something you want because of money. People make choices and sacrifices. You can find a way to do what you want. Our goals are right in front of us, but it's our choice if we want to work hard enough to achieve them.
pg 186 # 2
My main goal right now is to become a fashion designer working on the design team for a high fashion line. But of course that isn't just gonna happen that easily, not like some celebrities who some how get their own lines from just being on a stupid reality show. I mean come on Heidi Montag just launched a line, from being famous on the HILLS! Now that just pisses me off, atleast Lauren Conrad is going to school for fashion design and is working in the industry. I know that the fashion industry is so hard to get into and really be successful, its alot about working hard to make your way up the chain. Im hoping this summer to start working at Nordstrom and making my way up from there. I know i can get an internship there next year because my boss currently wife works there and can get me an intership. But if i didnt know her it would be alot harder to get one and that is only the beginning. From there meeting everyone and getting my name out there and working hard in school will hopefully allow me to have the job i dream of. There are alot of things that could make this dream a challenge but as long as i am willing to work hard, constantly be networking, and continue to be creative with my designs i have confidence that one day i will achieve it. Especailly with all the support from my family and friends it makes it easier to stay confident and driven to accomplish all that i can.
You have to be asleep to believe the dream.
I grew up in a Caucasian, middle-middle class, divorced family. My parents maintained a very friendly and amiable relationship during the course of my growth period. As such, I was told I could do whatever I wanted for a living (which has been called into question as my career path has veered towards 'musician', I suppose my father meant to say 'Any career that will give you a steady paycheck.'). I've taken it for granted that my ethnicity has not detrimented my life path. There's nothing out of reach, but there's plenty of things I would never devote my life to. The question isn't "What do you want to be when you grow up?" the question is "What do you want to do now?". Our paradigm of life is totally skewed. Spending the first third of your life learning how to work for the second third, only to make it to the last third when your retirement can kick in and you can finally have some fun? No, nothing is out of reach, but there are plenty of things I wouldn't ever want that most would leap out of a skyscraper for.
Thinking about race and class wars in terms of an organic system causes a very different view to be conjured. Similar systems fall together and group, reinforcing each other. We see this when plants or animals of the same species grow/live together, and when they fight for resources and land from other groups. There is no difference with mankind. Races of the same type grow and live together, 'dominant' races (usually 'dominant' is synonymous with 'majority') ostracize and oppress minorities, stereotypes and racism... all of it stems from the basic principals upon which information organizes itself. Looking at the planet as a whole, at humanity as a whole, we are trying to sort everything out and attain a type equilibrium or entropy. This is by no means a conscious decision, it's just how things fall.
Thinking about race and class wars in terms of an organic system causes a very different view to be conjured. Similar systems fall together and group, reinforcing each other. We see this when plants or animals of the same species grow/live together, and when they fight for resources and land from other groups. There is no difference with mankind. Races of the same type grow and live together, 'dominant' races (usually 'dominant' is synonymous with 'majority') ostracize and oppress minorities, stereotypes and racism... all of it stems from the basic principals upon which information organizes itself. Looking at the planet as a whole, at humanity as a whole, we are trying to sort everything out and attain a type equilibrium or entropy. This is by no means a conscious decision, it's just how things fall.
"Look how much my boots look like Uggs!!" Response to Question 1
I chose two adds, a Gucci and a Payless, both accessories (Gucci jewelry and Payless shoes). Both adds have few colors, mostly creams or browns. The Gucci has its eye catching points in the white lettering, very large at the bottom and in the shine of the jewelry. The Payless' add color pop is in its name, which is orange and the only bold color. The relay text in the Payless add are the prices and the website address (www.payless.com) and in the Gucci add the relay text is the quality of the jewelry, how many karats and what kind of diamonds are in the ring that is adorning Drew Barrymore's maniquered hand.
Though both advertisements are similar in style, as in there is one white female in each, and in the uncomplicated color schemes, however, they are clearly marketing to different facets of women. The payless girl has her lightly glossed lips parted and her hand to her chin, she is not hinting at sexual pleasure as Barrymore's parted lips and hands to her face suggest. Both women have long brownish wavy hair, but the payless girl's hair is cascading down her back where Barymore's is puddling on the surface she's laying on.
In my opinion, the difference the two adds convey, is that Drew Barrymore is suggesting that, "yes, middle-aged-but-still-somewhat-attractive-very-rich-woman, you can be satisfied too." and the upper-teens, early-twenties Payless girl is saying, yes, minimum-wage-working-up-and-coming-woman/girl, you can be stylish, and look upper class too. look how much these boots I'm wearing look like uggs!" The division is the difference between being upper class and using your money to maintain your status and being middle class to upper-lower class and using your money to fake being upper class.
There is no groups of people shown here, so no chance for racial diversity in a group of people, though both women are white, if both women were black or asian I'm not sure the difference would be great, especially if the non-white subject was a celebrity for the Gucci add.
It is worth noting that in the "upper class" adds, the majority of the subjects are white, and very anglo-european looking with fair complexions and blonde-to-brown hair.
"Class" Advertisements
The first ad I've found is for a Bendate & Co. Geneve diamond studded wristwatch in W magazine. The image is of a "beautiful," skinny, blond woman giving the viewer the "hush" sign. Her finger is held up to her lip with a large image of the watch beneath the woman. The headline reads, "Very famous amongst the very few" and in the bottom right hand corner reads the name of where one could purchase the watch, Saks Fifth Avenue. The second ad I found in Spin magazine and is selling Anchor Blue clothing. The main image is one of a young, attractive man dressed in Anchor blue jeans and t-shirt, standing in front of a young, attractive woman in an Anchor Blue (I'm getting revenue for mentioning their name so much in this blog!) sun-dress and boots. They are surrounded by a hip collage of city buildings, spray-paint cans, palm trees, helicopters, bright yellow sports cars, a boom-box, brass knuckles, a watermelon and a field of flowers...whew! The headline reads, "Welcome to La La Land." And a list of states where Anchor Blue stores can be found, including California, Colorado, Oregon, Idaho, Utah and Texas (not hotbeds of high couture), lies discretely in the bottom left hand corner of the ad.
Right away I see the opposition present in the ideas the headlines are invoking. The one for the diamond watch says, "Hey, there's only so many people that can afford one of these bad boys and are you one of them? Don't you want to be? Look at this hot blond you could nail if you were deemed worthy enough to wear our exclusive watch." And the other headline for the clothes is saying, "Yeah, people in LA might be in "La La Land" but we're cool as hell and look at all the cool stuff that we get to play with and we look bad as fuck doing it, for christ sake, she's wearing cowboy boots and the headlines written in a badass tattoo font on a scroll, man!"
Both ads seem like they're trying to make certain groups or "classes", the few wealthiest socialites vs. the young, hip and urban LAians, appealing to the viewer and portray their product as the key to join the fun of being rich enough to bang hot blonds or jamming out in LA. with the youth underground. The watch ad makes no qualms about the fact that only a few wealthy souls will be able to actually afford their product. The layout of the ad is "classic" with a black and white image and sleek design.
On the other hand, the clothing ad shows two hip (the man's Hispanic) youngsters standing in a funky and crazy layout with a head line that spunkily makes light of themselves as they stare off into space. These points tell me that this ad is geared toward the younger generation and lower class, more interested in having fun and breaking the rules and you're invited, just put on this Anchor Blue windbreaker.
My Goal is to be a Father not a Daddy.
My goals in life are to graduate from columbia college and be a movie producer or director. While being a great husband and father to my wife& kids. And maybe move somewhere hot and make lots of money HA!HA!HA!. But seriously my goal for now is to keep the rent paid, food on the table,plus life & health insurance for my family. I originaly wanted to be successful first and then have a wife & kids later . But life had something else planned for me, kids first and success later. And trust me, I am truly grateful to look like a older (brother), rather then (grandpa) picking the kids up from school. My goal now until the day I die, is to be successful and do anything in my power,to make sure my sons grow up to be, honest and successful men in society
Frank's goal
Well, my main goal in life is to graduate from Columbia ASAP and make an enjoyable living as a journalist. I would actually like to become a copy editor where I can put the best of my skills to use (of course this skill hasn't seen as much practice as of late, and could use a bit of sharpening). Now the interesting thing is that a "side mission" has manifested itself. Journalists tend to make crap money for doing so much work. So to compensate, I plan to seduce a sugar momma and then dig my claws into her and NEVER let go. Oh yeah, and the second she pops out a few of my kids, she's stuck with me. Hey, it's my life goal, you can't judge me! But back to a more serious topic, I'd like to discuss the origins of my "journalist" goal. It wasn't something I always dreamed of doing. Hell, I never dreamed about it all and didn't even consider it a career option until this past Fall. I was originally training to be a history teacher before I realized that I hated teenagers and was making an awful mistake. After that it came down to "what can I spend the rest of my life doing and enjoy doing it" and also a bit of "what else am I good at" I decided being a journalist sounded like a pretty damn good idea. So the point there is that your life goal doesn't have to be something you've wanted to do all your life. You can make a goal nearly on whim and still find a lot of enjoyment out of life. Oh yeah, and a final little note. Want to know why my original "dream goal from childhood" was NOT an option? I wanted to be a marine biologist. As a kid I read every book on marine life I could get my hands on. Well, as I aged and my mind developed, it turned out I was aquaphobic (fear of water, in my case it was open water). So there you go. If I would have followed my dream goal, I would be a specialist that could never actually enter his field of study without becoming a nervous wreck.
goals in life
My main goal right now is just to graduate from columbia. i want to get my degree and start working in my field as soon as possible. My goal and my job in the future would be a music producer/engineer. The main goal right now is to graduate. I changed my major when I arrived at Columbia, and at first it was hard to adjust. Now I have settled in and I know I have to work hard to reach this goal. To attain my goals I just have to stay focused and positive, and these things I have been doing anyway. Its only hard if you make, so if I just stay focused and not distracted, I will reach my goals. It is easy to get distracted, especially for me, but I have learned that I just have to focus. I transferred to Columbia for a reason, so I have to work even harder. I don't anything is to far to attain or "out of reach". If you want something you just have to go and get it, and not ask yourself is it out of reach or not. Sometimes I am guilty of thinking this way, but I have learned to be sure of myself in a lot of ways. If someone has the will to do something they will do it without any hesitation or distraction. Another goal later in life is to raise and support my family. I want to work first in my profession then I want to start a family. Basically these are my goals
Article (at last)
Sorry for the delay; turns out the article I wanted is no longer available and it took me a while to find a replacement I thought we could work with.
Here you go: The New Racism and Changing Beauty Norm
Due to the late post, if you don't have time to get to it, it will be optional for tomorrow. But, it's short and interesting if you do.
Here you go: The New Racism and Changing Beauty Norm
Due to the late post, if you don't have time to get to it, it will be optional for tomorrow. But, it's short and interesting if you do.
fake plastic trees
I once wanted to be a marine biologist. Well, not really, I wanted to be a dolphin trainer, specifically the kind that performs in the shows at aquariums and zoos and such. So, as the obnoxious child that I was, I made it a point to learn what type of degree would be needed to attain such a coveted position, so I could have an educated response to a question that is, in my opinion, asked far too much to children these days. I wonder if this process was unique to me, just being a weird kid, or if it could be found as consistent in my class? Growing up middle-class, there was always a lot of emphasis on higher education being a necessity in avoiding the life of our parents. Planning, sometimes for years and years in advance, was considered the norm as well. I feel as if this may be something that alters slightly between classes. Perhaps the lower class does not spend as much time planning and sorting out majors for careers, perhaps the upper class decides upon these things for children from a young age. As I am not a member of either of these classes (though, considering my income would probably define me differently) I cannot say for sure. Just a thought.
Since my long lost dreams of becoming a marine biologist (which, I should note, would still be really rad), I developed what I felt was a very rational and responsible career choice, being interior decorating. I find it interesting that I knew, even as a kid, that this goal was attainable, and if I told people that it was what I wanted to do from a young age, then actually ended up doing it, I was practically ahead of the game already. Being in middle-class suburbia tends to bring out these qualities in people. I think this is because of the constant state of sustainability that looms in the air. Loans, mortgages, yardwork, responsibility. That about sums it up, I'd say. Being middle-class is about being happy with where you are, and keeping it that way-or at least conveying that image to your neighbor with the better lawn. Nowadays, my ultimate goal is to end up (eventually) (hopefully) in some western european countryside with a group of friends or family (one that I start, not including my family that already exists, you couldn't pay me to live with them) on a self-sustaining farm where I can grow my own pot. Do I think this is attainable? Absolutely.
Since my long lost dreams of becoming a marine biologist (which, I should note, would still be really rad), I developed what I felt was a very rational and responsible career choice, being interior decorating. I find it interesting that I knew, even as a kid, that this goal was attainable, and if I told people that it was what I wanted to do from a young age, then actually ended up doing it, I was practically ahead of the game already. Being in middle-class suburbia tends to bring out these qualities in people. I think this is because of the constant state of sustainability that looms in the air. Loans, mortgages, yardwork, responsibility. That about sums it up, I'd say. Being middle-class is about being happy with where you are, and keeping it that way-or at least conveying that image to your neighbor with the better lawn. Nowadays, my ultimate goal is to end up (eventually) (hopefully) in some western european countryside with a group of friends or family (one that I start, not including my family that already exists, you couldn't pay me to live with them) on a self-sustaining farm where I can grow my own pot. Do I think this is attainable? Absolutely.
Born Wrong
I’ll never forget at the beginning of my freshman year at Columiba my dad sat me down and basically questioned all my choices that I had just made (and paid for). He asked me, in so many words, if I really thought I was going to make it in Hollywood. At the time, I was going to school for directing film and he argued that everyone in Hollywood was male and Jewish and since I wasn’t either one of those there wasn’t any way I was going to make it. His argument made me laugh a little, because I knew I wasn’t born wrong I still had to the skills and the drive to make it but for him my goals were simply out of reach. When it comes to the arguments of race and class and gender and individualism in today’s society, I just think that since everything is supposedly socially constructed then all I have to do is construct an image of myself to other people that I am qualified and fully able to do what is asked of me. I’m not going to let some theory that since I’m not the right race I’m not going to be able to succeed. To me there is no such thing as being “born wrong.”
Question 2: Goals in my life
One goal in my life is to become a rock star. This is one of my goals because it has been a dream for me for a very long time. I want to become a rock star because I have a love for music and the sound that comes from all different sorts of things. That is my top goal which is probably going to be very hard to accomplish but anything is possible. Other goals in my life would be to just live a normal life. A life where I go to work for whoever and come home everyday like every other human being living. I believe that living a normal life with work and a home should be everyone's first goal. I would say this is a goal in my life because it is what everyone in the world is doing so it should be a goal for since everyone else is doing it. I see it as if I don't achieve a steady job with a home, then I am not really living a full life. No goal is out of reach, as long as someone is willing to put their heart and soul into achieving there goal. I think that these goals come from watching other people succeed in them. There are rock stars everywhere that influenced me to reach for that status. My dad has succeeded in living a life with a awesome job and a pretty sweet house. I set my goals by seeing how other people have accomplished goals that I thought were necessary to life.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
My Upper-Middle Class Family and Why I'm Here
(In response to #2 on pg. 186)
I would say that my family is part of this ever-so-quickly disappearing “middle class”. Perhaps we would fit better into the “upper-middle class” category, but that's just splitting hairs. I've had many aspirations throughout my life, only some of which have prevailed through my teen years. The one that I think is most interesting to discuss in relation to my family's economic and social status is my goal to attend and graduate college. Ever since I can remember, college was a non-issue. It was pretty much assumed in my family that my siblings and I would graduate high school and go to a “good” four-year school. My parents both attended college and use their degrees in their careers, so as children the model was that in order to get a good job (preferably one you enjoyed) we had to go to college.
I would say that I decided what I wanted to major in in college and what I wanted to do with my life somewhere during my sophomore year of high school. I started out taking ASL classes as soon as I entered high school and quickly progressed and fell in love with the language. Where did this aspiration come from? The study of ASL is certainly not as intellectual as either of my parents' fields of study, nor my brother's. I got interested in ASL through a program at my middle school that allowed us to help out at a near-by school for disabled kids as an elective. Many of the teachers and children their knew sign language and (as I returned to volunteer on my own accord for the summer) I began to pick pick some of it up and use it with my friends. Perhaps this idea of volunteering and helping the less fortunate comes from the idea that we, as products of upper-middle class families, were in some ways responsible for using our privilege to help others (eg. I didn't need to get a job that summer). I also was able to take ASL classes at a local community center that cost a fair amount of money.
One major road block came my way in terms of financial support from my family. While visiting colleges my junior year of high school (something that my parents' money and ability to take time off work allowed me to do) I was very intrigued by Northeastern University in Boston. They had a great campus and a real cool ASL interpreting department. I applied early decision and was accepted (much to my surprise). However, the school's non-need-based financial aid system made it impossible for my family to afford the $40,000/year tuition. I was able to get into Columbia and we have been able to get enough aid for it to be quite affordable. So, despite my first attempt's failure, I was still able to attend a very descent four-year college.
I would say that my family is part of this ever-so-quickly disappearing “middle class”. Perhaps we would fit better into the “upper-middle class” category, but that's just splitting hairs. I've had many aspirations throughout my life, only some of which have prevailed through my teen years. The one that I think is most interesting to discuss in relation to my family's economic and social status is my goal to attend and graduate college. Ever since I can remember, college was a non-issue. It was pretty much assumed in my family that my siblings and I would graduate high school and go to a “good” four-year school. My parents both attended college and use their degrees in their careers, so as children the model was that in order to get a good job (preferably one you enjoyed) we had to go to college.
I would say that I decided what I wanted to major in in college and what I wanted to do with my life somewhere during my sophomore year of high school. I started out taking ASL classes as soon as I entered high school and quickly progressed and fell in love with the language. Where did this aspiration come from? The study of ASL is certainly not as intellectual as either of my parents' fields of study, nor my brother's. I got interested in ASL through a program at my middle school that allowed us to help out at a near-by school for disabled kids as an elective. Many of the teachers and children their knew sign language and (as I returned to volunteer on my own accord for the summer) I began to pick pick some of it up and use it with my friends. Perhaps this idea of volunteering and helping the less fortunate comes from the idea that we, as products of upper-middle class families, were in some ways responsible for using our privilege to help others (eg. I didn't need to get a job that summer). I also was able to take ASL classes at a local community center that cost a fair amount of money.
One major road block came my way in terms of financial support from my family. While visiting colleges my junior year of high school (something that my parents' money and ability to take time off work allowed me to do) I was very intrigued by Northeastern University in Boston. They had a great campus and a real cool ASL interpreting department. I applied early decision and was accepted (much to my surprise). However, the school's non-need-based financial aid system made it impossible for my family to afford the $40,000/year tuition. I was able to get into Columbia and we have been able to get enough aid for it to be quite affordable. So, despite my first attempt's failure, I was still able to attend a very descent four-year college.
Life is like a box of chocolates...
Well the funny thing about that is that one of my daily goals is to see tomorrow. I know however that one day that goal will end, but I hope it is for a natural reason. However one of my main goals in life is to become a filmmaker. Not just any "everyday" filmmaker, but one who is known throughout the country. With hearing stories from many individuals inside the industry, I know that this is not going to be an easy task. But deep, down inside me I feel that this is why I’m here. It’s not even my parents that are my aspirations, because they think that it’s one of those far fetched goals that in the end I’m going to be completely let down. But you know what…screw them! What’s the point of living if your not going to have a big dream to go after? Hell I know it’s a crazy goal. In fact, I question myself everyday on it. But, just taking the baby steps to get there is the best part. It is within these steps that you learn what life is about and when you are on your death bed trying to recuperate what you have done throughout your life you can go back to those struggling days and say, "Damn, what a life." One top of that another goal I have to complete is to travel to new locations every year, whether it is in the U.S.A. or out of it. With busting my ass by working hours upon hours I do believe that hard work goes a long way. For example, last year alone I was able to take a vacation every month and luckily they were all away from the state of Illinois. Hard work and passion go along way in life and when it comes down to it you decide your fate on this planet. Sure you can learn from your parents, or even friends, mistakes but it is up to you to follow through and make that same mistake or change something about it. Well that about sums up my goal/ life story…not really, but that is the gist of things.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
My Goals, And Why They're All Possible
I'm answering the second question on page 186.
I will get this out of the way now, my ultimate goal in life is to be happy. It's both cliché and an easy way to get out of answering the question, so let's move on to the goals I feel would be most likely to get me there.
I should warn you, my goals are far-fetched by most standards, so please don't giggle while/if you read this. My biggest goals in life all pertain to being in a band of no small success. A lot of people say that, or say they wouldn't pass up the opportunity if it presented itself. I am dead serious; that is what I want to do. I am a songwriter, and I put all of my thoughts into realising the goal of being, well, a rock star. But I take it more seriously than that would imply, from a craft perspective. The means I have to realise this goal include supporting parents, being personable, having at least some musical skill, and knowing how to get people to do what I want without them really knowing it. If my aspirations come from anywhere, I couldn't tell you the place. Neither of my parents ever wanted to be more than content. I would too, I'm sure, if I could be content, but never mind that.
While it's all a bit of a stretch, and will take hard work, I don't consider any of my goals to be out of reach. This is because I have the confidence and the skills, but also because, being realistic, I am a heterosexual, white, middle-class male. Short of being born to an upper-class family, there isn't much more of an advantage in life one could ask for. I went to high school in a very affluent town (I was middle-class, while most of my classmates would be safe in assuming that the middle-class would be working for them the rest of their lives), where they spent money on the public schools, and hired the best teachers, so I also have the education to make my goals a reality. There's not much to stop me, besides bad luck and bad planning.
I will get this out of the way now, my ultimate goal in life is to be happy. It's both cliché and an easy way to get out of answering the question, so let's move on to the goals I feel would be most likely to get me there.
I should warn you, my goals are far-fetched by most standards, so please don't giggle while/if you read this. My biggest goals in life all pertain to being in a band of no small success. A lot of people say that, or say they wouldn't pass up the opportunity if it presented itself. I am dead serious; that is what I want to do. I am a songwriter, and I put all of my thoughts into realising the goal of being, well, a rock star. But I take it more seriously than that would imply, from a craft perspective. The means I have to realise this goal include supporting parents, being personable, having at least some musical skill, and knowing how to get people to do what I want without them really knowing it. If my aspirations come from anywhere, I couldn't tell you the place. Neither of my parents ever wanted to be more than content. I would too, I'm sure, if I could be content, but never mind that.
While it's all a bit of a stretch, and will take hard work, I don't consider any of my goals to be out of reach. This is because I have the confidence and the skills, but also because, being realistic, I am a heterosexual, white, middle-class male. Short of being born to an upper-class family, there isn't much more of an advantage in life one could ask for. I went to high school in a very affluent town (I was middle-class, while most of my classmates would be safe in assuming that the middle-class would be working for them the rest of their lives), where they spent money on the public schools, and hired the best teachers, so I also have the education to make my goals a reality. There's not much to stop me, besides bad luck and bad planning.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Images by Barbara Kruger
The three images (figures 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3) that are in this chapter, made by the artist Barbara Kruger all communicate about gendered identities. When you look at the first image (figure 10.1) you see a man's arm and he's holding a fire torch, and behind the man's arm there seems to be a picture of what it appears to be a heart. This first image is representing power and pride to the masculine side and the heart is representing "love" to the female side. You should keep in mind that males are most of the time considered tough, bold, powerful, arrogant, and preciseful. Females are considered sensitive, gentle, modest, caring, and lovable. Both have different qualities in themselves, a man is defined by the actions he does or the way he looks, same goes for females. Back to the 1st image, there is a quote that goes along with the image, "Your moments of joy have the precision of military strategy." What comes up in your mind when you hear the word "military"? Females or males? To me -- I think of males when I hear the word "military". The word "joy" in this situation is "love". So when I look at the first image (figure 10.1), it's masculine and also feminine.
The second image (figure 10.2), looks like an explosion and there is also a quote that goes with this picture, "Your manias become science." I went and looked through a dictionary to find out what the word "manias" meant, and I came up with an excessively instense enthusiasm, interest, or desire. Also under this word, it is a violent abnormal behavior. I do not see anything on this picture that could be considered feminine. If you see an explosion, you think of man destroying a part of land or area. Scientist that create things for destruction are mostly males.
On the third and final image by Barbara Kruger (figure 10.3), you see two hands that seem to be from a man and he's scrubbing a "soap" and the quote that goes for this image goes like this, "You make history when you do business." Who are the ones that are conisdered to do more work? Males, females are more known to be housewifes at home, cooking and taking care of the kids and the house. Kruger is challenging certain norms that cluster around the sign of masculinity (military, scientist, and businessman) -- what would be interesting to see is seeing signs or feminine in these images. On the third image you could make the man hands to female and see if there would be a different meaning to it (to all of the three images).
The second image (figure 10.2), looks like an explosion and there is also a quote that goes with this picture, "Your manias become science." I went and looked through a dictionary to find out what the word "manias" meant, and I came up with an excessively instense enthusiasm, interest, or desire. Also under this word, it is a violent abnormal behavior. I do not see anything on this picture that could be considered feminine. If you see an explosion, you think of man destroying a part of land or area. Scientist that create things for destruction are mostly males.
On the third and final image by Barbara Kruger (figure 10.3), you see two hands that seem to be from a man and he's scrubbing a "soap" and the quote that goes for this image goes like this, "You make history when you do business." Who are the ones that are conisdered to do more work? Males, females are more known to be housewifes at home, cooking and taking care of the kids and the house. Kruger is challenging certain norms that cluster around the sign of masculinity (military, scientist, and businessman) -- what would be interesting to see is seeing signs or feminine in these images. On the third image you could make the man hands to female and see if there would be a different meaning to it (to all of the three images).
Barbara kruger
When I look at Barbara Kruger's images I don't really see anything about gendered identities. Nothing in the images really jump out at me that say anything about identities. I guess to certain people it would strike an opinion or discussion. The only masculine identity I see in the first image would probably be the arm with the torch in it. I guess it does have some sort of masculine identity, but when one thinks of military strategy the masculine aspect occurs. I don't think Kruger is challenging male norms. In my opinion it just looks like a regular military strategy poster. In the first image it looks as if a heart is behind the arm and torch. This can be a feminine aspect of the image. In the second picture I really can't tell what identity group Barbara Kruger is trying to reach.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Barbara Kryger
I think Kruger is challenging certain norms that are associated with masculinity by adding so called "femininity". This challenges the viewer, does it make a difference for them? I didnt really get any of the pictures i think i might kind of get 10.1. I understand her the femininity but am having trouble getting the mix with the military. And 10.3, when i look at it my mind thinks about the hands washing with soup and a brush i think of house chores, but the hands look more masculine. When i read the caption, "You make history when you do business." then i get confused again and have a hard time bringing them together in my mind. I think i understand the theory of gender and difference but i get lost as a viewer of other displays.
Kruger's photographs are definitely masculine in nature, with simple bold text in very straight forward statements. There is only one sentence and gets right to the point without a lot of embellishment or frivolous adjectives and "girly" qualities. The first picture of the arm and the torch is clearly a man's arm, a quite strong and built one at that, maybe symbolizing strength of a body builder or something of that sort. It actually reminds me of gladiators or early olympic games, made all the more prevalent with the torch, a symbol of the olympic games. The third picture is also of man hands. The texts are referring to work and business, typical man's work. and the picture of the storm and rocks don't imply feminism in any way to me as rocks and storms seem to be associated with strength. Military references always harken back to men. j
I don't see how she would be challenging men or masculinity, but is maybe just making commentary on it. I don't see how she could be challenging it in any form other than satire, which is subtle and can be over looked if the viewer is not looking for a challenge, or even a masculine reference.
Barbara Kruger
Since the tribal age, men have always been associated with going to war and conflict. The masculine identity, inherit and genetically, is one of power and violence. In recent decades this has changed. No longer are women the sole housekeepers, and no longer are men the sole soldiers. With the rise of gay and metrosexual identities, what it means to be 'male' is much more open to interpretation. Kruger identifies strongly with the feminist movement and uses her art to point out the follies of man. In this case it is the blind rush to apocalypse we seem to cater to. She's challenging the commonly accepted paradigm of manliness. The urge to fight and kill one, another.
I love her work!
I love her work!
Barbara Kruger images
Barbara Kruger's images, (hand+touch against a heart, next to the headline, 'Your moments of joy have the precision of military strategy and 'Your manias become science' over a picture of a mushroom cloud) communicate the male identity's unfeeling perspective on even the tender moments in life. By merging the oxymoronic image of military precision with any idea of joy, Kruger instantly revels a conflict of interest. The very female emotion of experiencing joy by living in the moment has to be planned out and only enjoyed this much for this long in the male world.
And over the iconic image of ultimate male genius gone bad, the words manias and science draw the male mind to think. Men have spent so much passion on destroying things by pushing themselves to find meaning in life only to end up designing something that could destroy all life. And these are ideas are still held up as advancement and works of great science.
James Brown once said it, "It's a man's world," at least as far back as our culture's history goes. There's evidence pointing to the fact that there could have been a culture before ours that worshipped femininity in everything from its religion to leadership. But, all we know is men ruling, shaping, experimenting, building and destroying, telling and re-telling. There's no "objective discourses of science and history" that aren't bound-up or bound by masculinity.
girls can have dirty minds too.
What do these images communicate about gendered identities? First of all these images are as cryptic as some post-secret, indie-rock cover art, and could be taken in a large number of ways. If I didn't look up Barbara Kruger, I wouldn't have known that she has feminist angles and therefore wouldn't really know how to analyze these images. Figure 10.1 is debating the moments of joy that, I'm assuming given the context of the question, men experience. I'm going to take another stab in the dark and assume that Ms. Kruger is among those less than happy with the political state of things. Saying that men's joyous moments have the precision of military strategy is perhaps implying that these moments are not precise at all, and perhaps moreso bumbling and testosterone driven. Is she criticizing what men enjoy? I really don't think so. Perhaps she is criticizing the idea that moments of joy can be calculated or pre-meditated. I know I've had boyfriends who strategically plan out dates to maximize romance and joy, and who knows, those calculations may have just been to ensure the "joy" of the boyfriend at the end of the night. I could never declare that this is what Kruger is trying to say, its just the only juice I can squeeze from my mind-grapes on the image. The next image, Figure 10.2 could perhaps be saying that all of the manias prevalent in males (and oh, there are many) are no longer just attributed to masculinity, thank god. There is science to decipher the behavior of all of us, and in saying that "your manias become science" could be indicating that less than proper behavior in males should not go written off as simply an attribute of being manly, but looked more deeply into in a scientific way. By scientific I am deliberately including social science, by the way. Instead of just looking at them as manias, we should try to figure out the biological and sociological reasoning behind masculinity. The third image, Figure 10.3 is a complicated one indeed. Before I give an intelligent response to the image, I have to admit that male masturbation comes to mind when viewing this image, and perhaps the history she talks about is the potential progeny in your tissue. Gross, sorry about that. From a less 14-year-old boy point of view, this image could be discussing the male feeling of obligatory success. You had better be doing something important, because as a man you're bringing home the bacon and making history while you're doing it. You are the ones who will be remembered in history books and on statues. What is the business she is talking about? Doing business implies getting something accomplished, and business definitely carries with it a connotation of a male-o-cratic businessman mentality. Perhaps Kruger is using sarcasm in this image, maybe she is poking fun at the sense of importance people feel when accomplishing menial tasks that are inflated in importance because of the capitalistic constructs under which we live.
I think for the first image, we could possibly say that Kruger is specifically targeting males, but the other two seem androgynous enough to be commenting on the norms that cluster around the sign of masculinity. We should be steadfast in remembering, however, that a great deal of social constructs are based on the male point of view. Women are definitely making waves, but as of now in mainstream society, the voices and opinions that are actually heard are often limited to deodorant commercials and diet plans. The difference between the two choices given in this question is that males do not necessarily reflect the social norms of masculinity, and vice versa. Also, there are masculine ideologies that constantly effect women, and therefore in targeting only males Kruger would be doing an injustice to all those without a penis that are equally blinded by these imposing ideologies.
I think for the first image, we could possibly say that Kruger is specifically targeting males, but the other two seem androgynous enough to be commenting on the norms that cluster around the sign of masculinity. We should be steadfast in remembering, however, that a great deal of social constructs are based on the male point of view. Women are definitely making waves, but as of now in mainstream society, the voices and opinions that are actually heard are often limited to deodorant commercials and diet plans. The difference between the two choices given in this question is that males do not necessarily reflect the social norms of masculinity, and vice versa. Also, there are masculine ideologies that constantly effect women, and therefore in targeting only males Kruger would be doing an injustice to all those without a penis that are equally blinded by these imposing ideologies.
Are we really like Fred Flinstone?
Both images 10.1 and 10.2 show what is perceived in society as masculinity. Image 10.1 shows a man's arm holding a torch of some sort, with a heart shaped image behind it. And the words (Your moments of joy have the precison of military strategy). I think the image is saying that men love to have the attributes of strength, courage, heart, fearlessness and boldness(all masculin attitudes). And since man made all the rules for the majority of our existance, (all without a women's intuition) these so called masculin attributes influence decision making regarding both male and female. Image 10.2 is picture of an (Atom bomb?) with the words (Your manias become science) convey's that man wouldn't have discovered the (Atom bomb) if the intent was not to wipe out a mass of enemies.(Does that make sense?) I think that's how science and history are bound to masculinity. Because it takes big b****(another so called masculin term) to push the button to kill almost a whole country. (not that a women couldn't do it) but a rather dumb way to find out about nuclear anything (Women think). Finally i think Barbara Kruger pictures are challenging male norms not males in general.
I still can't figure out what image 10.3 is
I still can't figure out what image 10.3 is
masculinity
In the Kruger images i see them both being very masculine. The arm holding up the torch in the first image is especially more of a strong male arm that reminds me of the typical "Olympic" torch symbol that is advertised while the Olympics are in season. Also i notice that the text precision of military strategy is also more appealing to a masculine mind. I don't particularly think that Kruger is challenging all males in these images. I see that it mostly depends on what a person is into to find the images challenging. If the advances in science and the military are commonly read subjects by an individual, I am sure they would relate to the text more then just any male who looks at the text would react.
Hidden Masculine Ideals
I will start this response by saying that these two images are very hard to analyze, and only a few gender-related issues are obvious. The first and really only very clear gender signifier is in the first image. The arm holding the fire is obviously that of a man. The text of the image also presents a masculine idea: the military. I'm not sure what the text actually means, but the military is definitely strongly tied to masculinity and is a conceived norm of manhood.
I'm having trouble pulling any concrete knowledge or ideas from the second image. I can certainly see how a volcano might be considered typically masculine (because of its eruptive power, and the fact that you can't tell they're dangerous until they explode. Science is also a field that is typically dominated by men, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around any clear concept of how the different elements of the image tie together. If I had to draw some conclusion from these two images, I would say that Kruger is making a point about the male's tendency to “bottle up” their emotions. She could very possibly be saying that men have to control every emotion in a very precise manner and that nothing is ever truly natural. I'm just not sure.
I'm having trouble pulling any concrete knowledge or ideas from the second image. I can certainly see how a volcano might be considered typically masculine (because of its eruptive power, and the fact that you can't tell they're dangerous until they explode. Science is also a field that is typically dominated by men, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around any clear concept of how the different elements of the image tie together. If I had to draw some conclusion from these two images, I would say that Kruger is making a point about the male's tendency to “bottle up” their emotions. She could very possibly be saying that men have to control every emotion in a very precise manner and that nothing is ever truly natural. I'm just not sure.
Kruger's Images
The first picture I observed told me that a man's love is like planning out a military battle. Like if a man has a moment of joy it is because he planned it out to be like that. And when he wins he feels like a god. Thats what I view and its seems really weird if the artist wanted it to be viewed like that. It makes men seem like they plan out joy which could be wrong. Joy, whatever it may be, is spontaneous and unexpected. If you expect joy to happen to you, then it really isn't that joyful because you'll know what's going on. So I think this picture is making men look like evil dictator's, but I could be very wrong. The second picture makes perfect sense to me about men or women, depending on who you are. It says to me that the undiscoverable manias of people can become something like science. For example, someone out there has a crazy interest in something like the moon, they become engulfed with the moon by examining every part. They try to find out everything about the moon because they are so curious and interested in it. They become a maniac when it comes to the moon but everyone around him thinks he is crazy. He gets called a maniac for liking the moon so much cause everyone else thinks its just the moo and nothing else. But something happens and the moon becomes scientific because its so how up in the sky and everyone starts thinking outside the box. So now this person, who was called crazy for having a maniac obsession with the moon, is now just as normal because his idea became science. The third picture I agree with slightly. I see that history is a lot about business ventures. Kings killed enemies so that they can get more money for the country. Empires expanded with deadly force to gain more money for the emperor. America became what it is because they didn't want to have to deal with British business that was competing with them. Yet there is also a lot of non-business in history too. So on one half the picture it tells me history is business while the other half says history isn't business
Gender and Sexuality
In Kruger's first picture I see a lot of masculinity coming through. There's is clearly a man's arm clutching a torch, and the line "precision of military strategy" speaks more to men than women. It really tries to conjure an image of warfare, which is usually a masculine ideal. But I would like to point out that the masculine/warfare thing is not the only cultural outlook humanity has had. The Sarmatians and the Scythians were well known for fielding whole armies of women (it's believed that they made the template for the Amazonian Warrior mythology). Another thing is the TV show, Xena: Warrior Princess. The lead role was a tall, strong woman who beat the shit out of men while riding around with her short blonde lady friend (hetero life-mates). Does this not try to support a woman's capability to fight? Also, in Asian cultures (especially Thailand) there is a women's league of Muay Thai, a very very very brutal form of kick-boxing that has been called "human cock fighting" by critics. Does seeing 2 women beating the life out of each other seem feminine? Maybe not to traditional western culture, but the west doesn't rule the world, and their beliefs and culture don't hold sway across the globe either. Next picture. It's kinda boring and genderless if you ask me. Science used to be a man's field of study, but that was back when EVERYTHING was a man's field of study. One of the smartest people I've ever known was my friend's cousin. She is a bio-chemist for the government, and she can actually say "if I told you, I'd have to kill you." That's how good she is in her field. They have given her such an important job that she can't actually divulge the details to the fucking public. Do you know any men that can say that? I sure as hell don't. Oh and the volcano in the picture. I was gonna say that it's a powerful force of nature, and I could try and make the case that it speaks to women, who all carry wombs, which are also an incredibly powerful force of nature. But, I really doubt that's what the picture was going for, so I'm gonna shut up now.
Strength and Masculinity
While critiquing these two photographs, the first thing that deserves attention is the text. Kruger chose the pronoun "your" which suggests that someone other than herself is responsible for the actions and consequences displayed. Because the artist is a woman, I can't help but assume that she was referring to men, creating a differentiation between genders.
As the chapter said, there is an ideological difference between gender roles. Stereotypically, a woman belongs at home, bearing children and generally having a sweeter, softer disposition. Countering that is the role assumed by men in which they are hunter and gatherers, protecting their land and their family with force and strength. The act of war epitomizes this.
Historically, women were kept out of the military and science fields. Kruger illustrates the devastation that comes from these advances achieved by "man." Perhaps strength, shown literally through the man's toned forearm holding the torch, is measured by the "joy" and satisfaction that follows power and control.
As the chapter said, there is an ideological difference between gender roles. Stereotypically, a woman belongs at home, bearing children and generally having a sweeter, softer disposition. Countering that is the role assumed by men in which they are hunter and gatherers, protecting their land and their family with force and strength. The act of war epitomizes this.
Historically, women were kept out of the military and science fields. Kruger illustrates the devastation that comes from these advances achieved by "man." Perhaps strength, shown literally through the man's toned forearm holding the torch, is measured by the "joy" and satisfaction that follows power and control.
gender and art
these two pieces feel very masculine to me. they don't seem to implicate anything feminine or womanly at all, or at least not anything we typically know to be feminine. the statement and the image in the top piece implies power, and power is not historically a word society used to describe women. also, i noticed that the arm holding the torch looks like a masculine, strong arm. strong is also historically not a word used to describe women. i've looked at the statement here and tried to interpret it, but i still can't quite get what it's trying to tell me, except for maybe that people have to choose to be happy, and that happiness doesn't just happen. the second/bottom image is a very science oriented image, along with the text. historically, science is very male. even today, you see more men in the science field than women. whether that is because science does not appeal to females or because females are directed away from the field of science, i'm not sure. though i think this speaks to a more male audience. there's also nothing foofy or feminine to this piece. it seems as though these pieces don't even seem to include or think about women or anything feminine. so maybe they are trying to illustrate how the world historically has done that very thing...forget and ignore women except when they are needed to be sexual with, produce children, and/or do the housekeeping. i don't know if kruger is challanging all males per say. however, i do think that she is challanging the very idea of masculinity in our society and how women and femininity go unnoticed or tends to be discredited and looked at as being less than. i think the difference between the two is that challanging all men would assume that all men are shovenist pigs. many of us know that is not the case and you cannot rightfully assume such things about people you don't know. the difference is also that challanging the cluster around the sign of masculinity is challanging society and all people, and also how we all look at gender in society and gender expectations.
Gender Theory
All three of these images deal with consistency and hard work. Lets take a look at the first image having the slogan "Your moments of joy have the precision of military strategy." When dealing with military topics many of us relate to it as a job for the men. However now and days that is not true with having the military beginning to advertise through the women’s prospective. In this first image we have this muscular arm holding this large torch in the air. We then can take a look at the image of the bomb exploding. And leading to the last image of hard work being portrayed through the text.
When we take a look at science and history we are also reminded of the "men" that fought for are freedom. We also can reference to Neal Armstrong saying, "That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Both of these examples deal with what men have done for civilization. Notice how many of the quotes in our history books don’t go in depth about women helping out society. Barbara Kruger does a great job going off what was thought of men, this idea of going off to the military, inventing the unimaginable and working hard.
Barbara Kruger does a great job of challenging the signs of masculinity. However is she challenging all males or certain norms that cluster around this idea of masculinity? These signs of masculinity could go off of this idea of being smart, strong and have this attitude of never giving up. Its hard to say if she is stating this to all men. Let's face it times have changed and the role of women is quickly mixing in with the role of the man.
When we take a look at science and history we are also reminded of the "men" that fought for are freedom. We also can reference to Neal Armstrong saying, "That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Both of these examples deal with what men have done for civilization. Notice how many of the quotes in our history books don’t go in depth about women helping out society. Barbara Kruger does a great job going off what was thought of men, this idea of going off to the military, inventing the unimaginable and working hard.
Barbara Kruger does a great job of challenging the signs of masculinity. However is she challenging all males or certain norms that cluster around this idea of masculinity? These signs of masculinity could go off of this idea of being smart, strong and have this attitude of never giving up. Its hard to say if she is stating this to all men. Let's face it times have changed and the role of women is quickly mixing in with the role of the man.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Gender
I have spent the last hour reading and re-reading this chapter, and going over those two pictures more times than I really care to think about, and I can't figure out what they communicate about gender roles. Honestly. I'm trying, I really am. I got nothing.
I can't even think of any stretches, things that you might accept, but with a raised eyebrow. I'll come back to it again tomorrow, but just in case the situation doesn't improve, I wanted to post this so you knew I wasn't flaking out on the assignment.
I can't even think of any stretches, things that you might accept, but with a raised eyebrow. I'll come back to it again tomorrow, but just in case the situation doesn't improve, I wanted to post this so you knew I wasn't flaking out on the assignment.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Articles for Tuesday (4/22)
Article 1: Does Dove Really Love Our Humps?
Article 2: A Different Shade of Queer
And, while I have you, here's , brought to you by The State.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
See you Tuesday. ee
Article 2: A Different Shade of Queer
And, while I have you, here's , brought to you by The State.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
See you Tuesday. ee
Monday, April 14, 2008
Blog Question 7
These two figures both say a lot of things. Mainly how Hollywood loves to typecast. Yes these two images show interpretations of Arabia however they are barely different. The problem with mainstream hollywood is that to get certain points across they have to be prejudices of every race. Thus this is why we get the images that are presented to us in the book. The really drastic change of Arab culture that has emerged is due strictly to that of the events of 9/11. After 9/11 the racism that the majority of african americans felt was somewhat lifted and put towards Arabs. The mass population of the United States seems to think the majority of people of arab decent or who look it are terrorists. This is obviously not true. But interpretations in movies and television that buy into the biases will no doubt have a lasting effect on people's opinions. What is reflective of the current world happenings usually filters through hollywood. This can be shown currently with the war in Iraq and how multiple films have been produced regarding the war, and Americans very null response to them because we don't want to see the war since it is still going on.
postcolonialism
these two representations look pretty archaic to me, especially the image from lawrence of arabia. however in the top image, western man and the arabs are seen as being enemies. i know that is not nessesarily true today, and i don't think it was nessesarily true 20 years ago. it depends on which part of the middle east you are talking about. many middle eastern countries are more modernized now. take jordan for example. jordan is very comparable to the united states in it's daily life and i believe there are other arab countries that are more modernized that these two images suggest. in both images, women are not represented as a primary or equal part of society. they of course have a veil covering their face, and play a very submissive role in the background. again, this may still be true in some regions in the middle east, but not all of them.
however, the image of indiana jones walking into "arabia," and being attacked is pretty far fetched. i don't think if i were to travel to jordan or palestine or possibly even israel, there would be a ninja-like attack on me as soon as i arrived. these images clearly suggest that arabs are either villians or very territorial...or both. these images are very much portraying arabs as the "enemy." being that i have known people from middle eastern cultures, i know that is not true.
it's tough to say how things have changed in arabia. i think things like the archetecture, and the clothing have not changed in some areas. in other areas, society is more liberated and people dress just like americans. they don't dress in robes in some middle eastern countries.
arab men and women in hollywood portray very different roles. the men are always seen as powerful villians or terrorists. the women are seen as being very passive, vulnerable, the victim...it's all very old world to me. i think that some of these things have stayed the same such as some of the viewpoints towards women in some regions. only in some areas though. for example, in saudia arabia i believe women are still oppressed in the sense that they must always be accompanied by a man, always cover their face, remain very passive. however, in places like jordan (and i'm sure there are others), women are able to do everything they do here in the united states.
two Hollywood ethnicbusters
There is an obvious difference between the two stills from Raiders of the Lost Ark and Lawrence of Arabia. What is more important though, is the similarities. In both films, the main character/the hero is the focal point. And they are, of course, white men. The Arabs have defined and definite attire in both stills, which is exactly what we are used to seeing in films. There's a strong sense of anger and primitiveness in both stills, that is only held by the Arabs, while the American man is civilized and intelligent. Even though the two stills are of completely different scenarios, they execute a similar feeling that their culture is not developed and that they are not similar to other developed and high culture countries.
We see this in all movies and television shows when they depict the Arabic culture, and we essentially accept this because it is what we have to go by. The issue is that we create the light around the Arab's to be something below us, but why are "colonized" countries right? I think Europe has more of a right than we do to push their ways upon others, not that it is the right thing to do or even ethical. But America is ridiculous for ostracizing other cultures when ours has been around the shortest amount of time. There is more culture embedded in the Arab's clothing than Indiana Jones' because it is that of their own, rather than adopted from others.
We see this in all movies and television shows when they depict the Arabic culture, and we essentially accept this because it is what we have to go by. The issue is that we create the light around the Arab's to be something below us, but why are "colonized" countries right? I think Europe has more of a right than we do to push their ways upon others, not that it is the right thing to do or even ethical. But America is ridiculous for ostracizing other cultures when ours has been around the shortest amount of time. There is more culture embedded in the Arab's clothing than Indiana Jones' because it is that of their own, rather than adopted from others.
Eastern Representation In Film Stills
Looking critically at the stills from the two different movies, it's easy to assume who the protagonists and antagonists are in each film. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the men in the white robes are portrayed as meek, timid men who stand behind one man. The man in the black robe is personified by the color of his clothing and portrayed as evil, dark and dangerous. The photo suggests that these people who sell in the market have nothing better to do but watch Indiana Jones fight with their "leader." The west, Indiana Jones, is civilized enough to wear suspenders and pants. Indiana carries a gun with a holster while the Middle Eastern man has a stereotypical sword.
Lawrence of Arabia is humorous because of the fact that all of the men who are playing Eastern characters, Middle Eastern people, are white. The actor who plays the lead character happens to have the lightest skin free of facial hair while donning a stark white robe. It's obvious that this film was made well before Raiders of the Lost Ark because of the large misrepresentation of Middle Eastern people. In the second shot, the group of men look as though they are wealthy and hold a higher status, living in a castle or coliseum with a throne like chair.
Omitting women completely from these stills, or rather the refusal of representing women is in fact a representation of the men and perhaps the women as well. We're supposed to believe that the men are the only people who can handle the business, sales, fighting and defending. This reflects a patriarchal society where the women stay in the home and care for the family.
In Hollywood films today, I think we are given both patriarchal and matriarchal images of Middle Eastern men and women. However, in some instances, women are objectified and portrayed as super sexual figures. An example of this was a Bollywood remake of Pride and Prejudice I once saw. I don't believe that women should suppress their sexuality in order to create a sense of equality with men, but in the film, the women were lusted after by the men. They were shown with revealing robes and clothing, belly dancing and fighting for the men's attention while the men sat in the audience and grinned.
The representation of women and men in this film reflects both stills, specifically Lawrence of Arabia. The film suggests that great wealth deserves praise and when one doesn't have wealth they are portrayed as barbaric.
Lawrence of Arabia is humorous because of the fact that all of the men who are playing Eastern characters, Middle Eastern people, are white. The actor who plays the lead character happens to have the lightest skin free of facial hair while donning a stark white robe. It's obvious that this film was made well before Raiders of the Lost Ark because of the large misrepresentation of Middle Eastern people. In the second shot, the group of men look as though they are wealthy and hold a higher status, living in a castle or coliseum with a throne like chair.
Omitting women completely from these stills, or rather the refusal of representing women is in fact a representation of the men and perhaps the women as well. We're supposed to believe that the men are the only people who can handle the business, sales, fighting and defending. This reflects a patriarchal society where the women stay in the home and care for the family.
In Hollywood films today, I think we are given both patriarchal and matriarchal images of Middle Eastern men and women. However, in some instances, women are objectified and portrayed as super sexual figures. An example of this was a Bollywood remake of Pride and Prejudice I once saw. I don't believe that women should suppress their sexuality in order to create a sense of equality with men, but in the film, the women were lusted after by the men. They were shown with revealing robes and clothing, belly dancing and fighting for the men's attention while the men sat in the audience and grinned.
The representation of women and men in this film reflects both stills, specifically Lawrence of Arabia. The film suggests that great wealth deserves praise and when one doesn't have wealth they are portrayed as barbaric.
Born Supremacy
The two stills of (Lawrence of Arabia) and (Raiders of the lost Ark) suggests the identity of Arabian's compared to the western civilization, are uncivilized and barbaric people. For instance in the (Raiders of the lost Ark) picture. There is an Arabian man about to fight (Harrison Ford) in the middle of the desert with a sword. At least (Harrison Ford) had not only a whip but a gun. That's like bringing a knife to a gun fight, how barbaric is that to be willing to fight with a sword. Both stills portray how out of touch Arabian's seem to be from the rest of the world. But currently in Hollywood films Arabian people are portrayed as smart, political and dangerous people. Their not walking around with sword's or riding camel's(like portrayed in the past) but yet a more modern way of carrying guns and driving cars. Arabian's are still associated with certain elements of their constructed identities such as turbans, robes,camel's, alaaden cartoon's genie's etc. Which basically shows (or tries to portray) America portraying its supremacy, not only to the Middle East but to the world
Indiana & Lawrence
The Indiana Jones still suggests that the Arab nation is against the western nation. Indiana is standing down 30-20 arabs, the central antagonist wearing all black and wielding a scimtar. It is an extremely imposing image - the lone white hope herocially facing down the hordes of non-christians.
The Lawrence of Arabia still, however, suggests an entirely different conclusion. Lawrence is standing with the arabs, wearing thier clothing. They all look concerned, as if they are trying to sort something of great importance out.
The portrayal of arabs in western film and TV continues to decline on the path that Indiana Jones has layed. I don't watch TV (I rarely go to the movies) but from snippets of programs I've seen I have to say I've been quite suprised by how openly arabic people are ostracized and killed. 24 is the only show that comes to mind at the moment. I wonder what American citizens would have say if they found out that arabic television stations were/are broadcasting westerners being killed by patriotic arabs?
The Lawrence of Arabia still, however, suggests an entirely different conclusion. Lawrence is standing with the arabs, wearing thier clothing. They all look concerned, as if they are trying to sort something of great importance out.
The portrayal of arabs in western film and TV continues to decline on the path that Indiana Jones has layed. I don't watch TV (I rarely go to the movies) but from snippets of programs I've seen I have to say I've been quite suprised by how openly arabic people are ostracized and killed. 24 is the only show that comes to mind at the moment. I wonder what American citizens would have say if they found out that arabic television stations were/are broadcasting westerners being killed by patriotic arabs?
Post-colonialism (Arabia)
Compared to their American counterparts, the stills from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Lawrence of Arabia" suggest "Arabs" as being primitive, angry and background filler in support of Western dominance.
We see in both stills arab people wearing long robes and head dressings. This dress is part of their religious culture and necessary to protect against the often harsh sun and sand of their environment. However, to Western eyes this is most likely seen as "primitive," not as enlightened as the designer outfits worn with as much pride by Americans. As a side note, it's interesting how in the "Raiders..." still shows the aggressive, sword wheedling Arab dressed in black surrounded by a crowd of white robed observers.
The faces of the most predominant Arabs in both stills display tense brows or exposed, clinched teeth, facial hair and angry eyes. These expressions depict Arabs as angry and mean, more obvious in the "Raiders..." still where a black clothed Arab is brandishing a sword, ready to attack.
Lastly, the main white, Western charters, the American archeologist Indiana Jones (man, did I want to be an archeologist after that one!) and the British officer Thomas Lawrence are in the foreground of both stills. The predominance of these white heros to their arab counterparts in the photos perhaps indicates the West's notion of superiority over Arab countries.
The American representation of "the Arab" has ebbed and flowed over the years. Our perception in terms of showing the complexity of Eastern cultures due to globalization and increasing diversity within our own culture as allowed for the 'flow' of our deeper understanding and appreciation of other cultures. However, events such as 9/11 set us back what seems like decades when our near-sighted, bloated, white, corrupt leaders chose the lowest common denominators when painting the portraits of our new "enemies." Fortunately, it seems that a backlash has occurred towards these unenlightened (and unrealistic) views of "Arabs" and this is hopefully a sign of real progression towards understanding and accepting other culture's validity.
I just saw a movie not long ago whose main characters were two brothers contemplating whether to become suicide bombers. The film showed their internal conflict and explored the culture from which they came. It was not a Hollywood blockbuster, but does show how we are at least being more exposed to different, more rounded views in films these days. The big action films like Rambo XXII, will most likely always show "Arabs" in a bad light, but with the connectedness of the world through vehicles like the internet, broader views of other cultures are bound to be brought into Western homes.
The images we see in these two stills are reflective of the political, cultural, and economic context of the times the movies were made. Lawrence of Arabia is based on a true story of a British officer who assimilates himself with "the Arabs" to fight the Turks, ultimately helping the British overthrow the Ottoman Empire. In the still Lawrence is a dressed like an Arab, apparently standing up to someone with them. In "Raider of the Lost Ark" the black clad Arab swordsman is one of many swarthy obstacles standing in the way of Indies' retrieval of what is rightly his, the Lost Ark of Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)