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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)