blog 9 wk 5 practices of looking/Modernity_Spectatorship_Power alex elliot

A situation in my daily life where I feel like I'm on display. I'd have to say work. I work at the Segundo dinning commends. I am subject to the prolonged observation of customers management and the ever present cameras which I can only assume to be installed. Working behind a booth at a buffet grants a strange relationship between employee and customers. First of all I am ever aware of the gaze, I am literally surrounded by all sides people who's attentions is turned to me. I am in uniform so that I am easy to identify. Working at a buffet is different than other restaurant work, I don't take orders and interaction with customers is very minimal, I would describe situation some what like The Panopticon. Only instead of being a prisoner I am more like furniture, I am not to be kept in but to provide a service; The gaze is ever present and being on the clock, even when no one can see you, in stills a sense of duty to do one's job. Both responsibility to co-workers and customers keeps me in check preventing me form slacking off.

The production note I would use to cast this as an add and capture the feeling would be.

The employee is working at a station.

He is smaller then the customers he is serving, he is wearing in gray, black, or white the worker also clean, quiet, well mannered, efficient
the worker should seem unimportant and embody and sever as an extension of the kitchen

The customers should ware bright colours, be energetic, and unique, the should be taller and stand out form the back ground, they should be attractive and in groups.
The customers should seem important and embody what the target of the add wants to be and feel like when in a restaurant ie part of the group.

blog 8 wk5 adbuster alex elliot

The face book suicide article raised some very good points. I do believe that this generation is obsessed with a digital self. Social net working sites like face book need to be seen for what they are, a digital extension of the public gaze. If acknowledged as such then it can be managed responsibly. My generation is quite frankly one of the most mediated generations in human history, the media influences us via adds at school, work, the Internet, billboards on roadsides, tv, radio, on clothing, displayed on the side or areas in sporting events, and even on blimps and tailing airplanes in the sky. What face book and social networking sites do is to provide a channel for this public influence to follow us every ware, in addition to this creates an area for us to participate with the public influence.

For instance on my face book I am a fan of both Pepsi and coke, I have dumb quotes from my favourite shows. And links to websites where you can hear music form my favourite bands. Stop me if this sounds familiar...

Face book users relate to commercial products to build an identity to the public gaze that is ever present in an on-line medium. I think I will not cancel my face book account, personally It can serve as a tool for communication and be a useful way to stay in touch with old friends. Just be sure to remember not to construct an identity on face book that isn't who you are, it is a public arena open to the public gaze but you can always log out when your done. Much like going home at the end of a long day you don't have to live in a under face books public eye 24 hours a day.

Blog 9 - Modernity, Spectatorship, Power

A situation in my daily life when I feel particularly self conscious?

As a QUEER PERSON OF COLOR, my body is made the subject of 'the gaze,' politicized and objectified by my very existence.

That's one of the fundamental maxims of queer theory, and I'm conscious of it every moment of the day, not that I'd need to be with the constant stares, murmurs, and disapproval reminding me. In the article, it mentioned that Lacan believed “that the gaze is the property of the object and not the subject who looks,” but I believe it's more complicated than that. The power dynamics within the gaze can alternate, with the ability to affect a 'gaze' being the property of the object, and the subject who looks having consent over gazing or not. But too often the subject who looks does so without the consent of the objectified, and thus the gaze is not the property of the object.

In actual terms, I'm basically saying it's not in my power to stop people from staring at me because I'm queer, and that's not okay. The 'gaze' isn't my property.

For the sake of a specific instance, let's pick the bathroom! That's always a great experience.

Production Notes:
A gender non-conforming individual walks into a bathroom.
5'6”, bleach blond hair, chin length, in feminine curls.
Chicano, young looking, 18-20
Dressed in a sparkly, gold, woman's top, black leggings, 4” high black boots.
Red lipstick, heavily darkened eyes.
Goes into stall to use toilet.
Hear the toilet flush, gender non-conforming individual walks to wash hands.
While washing hands, another individual walks into the bathroom.
Male, 5'11”
Short, messy hair, muscular build
White, clean cut, 20-22
Wearing fraternity t shirt, baggy jeans, and sandals
Looks up to see gender non conforming individual washing hands
Looks disgusted, walks away.

Blog 8 - Adbusters

Comparing canceling a facebook account to suicide is problematic and a drastic over exaggeration. The argument that it's unhealthy to have so much of one's self made public is not applicable to everyone. The majority of people understand that Facebook is a fun, social networking site that doesn't define them completely. Likewise, the people on Facebook who visit an individual's page are aware that it's not an exact representation of that person. Making these assumptions should be the issue being discussed, not the channels through which their made. The capacity for obsession is seen in any of the technological means through which we communicate today. The trick would be to balance yourself, monitor your usage and keep it at a healthy level.
I feel like I'm not the best example of a person who can healthily use facebook recreationally. I actually only use my facebook these days to keep in contact with organizations and groups. I think that aspect of facebook really facilitates networking and communication. If I had to delete my facbook, I would have to put that much more effort into contacting people and making myself available for them to contact me. Plus I wouldn't get to come up with nifty, clever little status updates that make me seem cooler.

Blog 9 Modernity Spectatorship Power

Recently, I have spent many hours in Shields Library. I always sit at the same desk on the fourth floor; sometimes reading the material I have laid out in front of me, or else gazing out the window at the people below. Sometimes, I block out everything else, whether I am reading or looking out the window, and I do not realize that someone is suddenly standing inches away, looking at the various books on the shelves. Other times, I look across the street at the art building, to see people busy at work or looking across the street, and back at me. There is something uncanny about reading in a library; you become immersed in what you are reading, you would never realize that you are being watched, should a stranger stop to observe you. Yes, I am also one of those strange people. I have a lot of weird thoughts when I'm in the library. This was created from one of those thoughts.

Production Notes

Purpose: The promotion of reading and writing literary works

Target Audience: Adolescents 12-19, and Young adults 20-25

Scene: Young man sitting casually in a library reading classic literature

Exposition: Promotion will support an ironic change of power between the so-called “age of information” and “classic culture”. The purpose is to illustrate that although we live in the age of information, the information is nothing but news and commercials; and because we are surrounded and awed by the titanic nature of technology, we do not realize that our culture is slowly fading. Empathizing this is the empty library scene: a building that was once the resource for all the information anyone could ever need, now stripped off its books. Libraries and books once shared a symbiotic importance; now they share a common void in our culture. A young man (the Other), dressed in a rebellious style, considered to be outside the norm of culture , is depicted reading from a book of poetry. His pose and contemporary dress is reminiscent of the the classic art figure, the pilgrim: a traveling man of letters and sciences on a lifelong journey of self-discovery through knowledge. This will illustrate the idea that literature, one of the very essences of culture, is also outside the norm; the culture of technology, which has destroyed the importance of libraries and possesses little need for literature, has become the norm. A Voice Over will appeal to its target audience, the youth of America, to improve their creativity by reading, and perhaps, be inspired to write literature of their own.

Scene Synopsis:

[Fade In from Black]

A shadowed walkway between two long, empty bookshelves. Seated on a window sill at the end of the walkway is a young man, late teens or early twenties; he leans back casually against the inside of the window sill. His left hand rests on his right thigh, supporting his right arm; his right hand is holding up a book for him to read.

Voice Over begins as camera slowly moves forward through the walkway, towards the young man. Voice Over expresses sorrow that libraries and the literature therein have become under-appreciated within a culture centered in technology. Voice Over continues, expressing how the our culture is slowly becoming devoid of thought, because the voices of past philosophers, writers, poets, and other literary artists are disappearing from the minds of the youth; the empty bookshelves emphasize this cultural void.

The camera is now close enough for the audience to see clear details about the young man seated in the window sill.

He is dressed in rebellious, but nonthreatening clothing: faded blue jeans with black leather belt and skull belt-buckle; thick, black boots; slightly ragged white T-shirt; black bandanna with white skull prints; beige trenchcoat; black sunglasses. His hair is long, and falls just below shoulder level; he wears silver stud-earrings.

The title of the book he is holding reads: The Poetry of William Blake

Voice Over asks the audience where these voices have gone, when they began to fade, and what will happen if they disappear forever. As the voices of the past fade, says the Voice Over, so will the voices of our future.

Young man lowers the book, looks toward the camera and quotes a line from Blake's poetry: “Some are born to endless night.” Then asks the audience: “Are you?”

[Fade to Black]

Blog 8 Adbusters

When I was in high school, I had a MySpace page. I do not remember why I made a MySpace page, but it was probably because everyone else had one, and I thought it would be fun. I was wrong.

I hate MySpace. The first time I created a page, I am ashamed to admit, it was PERFECT! I had a beautiful, custom-made Gothic background that my friend drew for my page; my information tables were transparent red, so they looked like stained glass; I had what I considered at the time to be the perfect mix tracks of Metal for my MySpace music player; and my profile picture was the last photograph that was taken of me in my Gothic gear, just before I left the Goth scene after becoming fed up with the commercialization of the Gothic subculture and the spawning of the Goth subculture's bastard children, the Emo and Vamp subcultures. But, I digress...

Then, there was a terminal error that wiped out my webpage, destroying what was probably a total of 50 hours of painstaking detail. All of it, wasted time. So, I created another MySpace, sent a F-U message to Tom, and promptly deleted my second MySpace page, vowing never again to get sucked into anymore stupid high school bullshit.

After I came to Davis, I was introduced to Facebook. I was told that it was a “networking site” for college students. Again, I found myself spending time constructing yet another virtual shrine to myself.

Recently, I made a conscious decision to spend less and less time checking in on Facebook or updating my status, because I realized there are more interesting things to do.

As for committing “Facebook suicide”, I need to consider what value the site still has for me as a college student. I use it to exchange information with classmates, although I also communicate with them via my cell phone. I use it to keep in contact with friends and family whose lives are too busy for the occasional phone call; I find that in college, I spend most of my time in class, studying in the library, or sleeping, so I can understand if some people have trouble keeping in touch. It keeps me updated with current events occurring at Davis, such as campus events, social events, and parties; however, between homework and sleep, I do not have a lot of time for those activities anyway. So, aside from these three networking features, I could really do without Facebook.

So, why should I not commit Facebook suicide? I my opinion, anyone who commits Facebook suicide, then writes about it, is defeating the purpose of actually committing it. Deleting oneself from a networking site, no matter the reason, is a social statement; it tells people that there is something about the site that does not agree with you. If I was to leave Facebook, I would just leave. No office memo, no two weeks notice. If anyone wanted to contact me, they have my cell number. If anyone wanted to give me shit about leaving, they can post it on my then dead webpage for the rest of the Facebook community to see; maybe they will have an epiphany halfway through writing their hate messages on my wall, and then reorganize their priorities.

Blog 9- Modernity, Spectatorship, Power

Although this is not a situation that I am put in on a daily basis, I definitely feel “the gaze” when I am passing out fliers at the MU to anyone who walks by. I know what it is like to gaze on someone doing what I do, and it is awkward being the receiver of “the gaze.”

Setting: UC Davis Memorial Union, the sidewalk between the Memorial Union and the grassy Quad area. Camera will be used a typical student (first person) point of view. Camera scans around a bustling college campus with troves of people 18-22, with a few mature looking professors dispersed in the crowds, and tour de France style bicycles whizzing by. It is passing period in between classes. Camera stops, zooms in and focuses on one person in the crowd. Person of focus: Asian female, 5’2 in height and average weight, dressed in jeans, modest shoes, and a black hoodie with purple fraternity letters across the chest. She is gripping onto a stack of bright yellow fliers that are quarter of a page in size in one hand, and a single flier poised to pass it to any one willing to grab it.
Camera advances and moves closer to the girl. Girl tells strangers, “Come to our culture show this Sunday!” in a bubbly tone that is slightly forced. Alternating passersby are disgruntled and either decline, or avert their eyes and ignore the girl. The girl is discouraged, but purses her lips into a smile in attempts to be strong and move on to the next stranger.
Camera continues to advance towards girl. Girl makes eye contact with camera. Camera quickly breaks eye contact and focuses onto the cell phone or iPod the camera person is holding. Camera quickly looks up and eye contact is reestablished with girl. Girl smiles ear to ear, knowing that she reeled in the camera. Girl juts out a flier and happily says, “Come to our culture show this Sunday!”

Blog 8- Facebook Suicide

I have a facebook profile, and though I can relate to some of the things that Carmen Joy King mentioned in her article “Facebook Suicide” I thought some of it was a little overdramatic. Granted, I have become one of those people that coincidentally have a Facebook tab in my browser ready to go or I find myself bee lining to Facebook as a means of procrastination or boredom. Some people may use their profiles to create “the best versions” of themselves, and there are others who simply use it as a sort of journal. When I said that King was being slightly overdramatic, I was referring to how she related deactivating or cancelling your Facebook page is like committing suicide. Although Facebook has become the primary means of communication in our generation (aside from cell phones and texting), and it may seem that deleting your Facebook page is equivalent to erasing yourself from the social world. Personally, I would be able to release myself from Facebook’s grip. I feel that if I did it would force me and people who genuinely want to keep in contact with me to stop hiding behind their computer screens, semi-witty comments that probably take them hours to come up with, and their emoticons. Without Facebook we would gain more personal relationships, like the ones we had back in the day because we are forced to meet face to face or hold an audible conversation. What would we lose? We would probably miss out on random inside jokes, pictures that were taken last night, and the latest dirt on people you went to school with. I would not mind passing up on that. My jokes are funnier in person anyway, and I do not need to watch the dysfunctional couple’s bickering all over my news feed. However, I would run the risk of losing all the pictures that I posted and the pictures my friends have posted of good times we had together. Granted they can send them to my through e-mail or print them and send them (ancient technology I know). It would just be sad to lose all the pictures and the memories.
In the beginning I said that my Facebook is more like my journal. I have never finished a diary or a journal. Facebook is the closest thing that I have had that is similar to one. I occasionally look back at the things that I said when I was going through tough times or good times. Small things like that take you back in time to events you may have forgotten. That is one thing that I would be scared of losing by deleting my facebook, aside from that…I can let it go.
I agree that some people have taken social networking to a narcissistic level where everything…EVERYTHING is about them. With the self taken profile pictures that rotate every week and the statuses that detail every waking moment of their day from how spicy their toothpaste was to how much lint is on their sheets. Seriously…people do not care. Obsessive Facebook people yearn to have someone comment on their activities, but rarely ever make an attempt to connect with others. Maybe Facebook is just bringing out the selfish side in everyone. I agree with King that our generation is appropriately named “Generation Me,” people are less inclined to reach out and try to understand someone, although they demand that kind of understanding from everyone else.
Everything in moderation my friends. The affects of Facebook suicide is applicable to those who have lost control of Facebook, and have let it consume them. I would say that if I were to delete my Facebook tonight I would not consider it Facebook suicide it would be more like Facebook relief.

Blog 9: Modernity, Spectatorship, Power

When I play racquetball at the gym, I am literally displayed to the world, in a large glass room, and feel more self-conscious than most other times. At this time I am able to "gaze" at myself and in a way, see what I look like from an outside perspective. Even though there is no reason to be shy about this, being on display for myself and others brings about a bit of an awkward feeling.

Caucasian male age 19; moderately tall; somewhat lanky; nervous looking. Looks around anxiously and opens large glass door into racquetball court. Begins playing, appearing to put forth a good deal of effort but attempting not to look like he is trying too hard; somewhat carefree attitude even though trying to win. Moves back and forth along court while numerous other gym goers walk by outside room, momentarily glancing into the game. Main character misses points occasionally glancing back at the glass wall somewhat nervously, noticing the people walking by. Main character appears to be well aware of his actions and motions, trying to control each very specifically. Loses game and exits room; somewhat dejected; somewhat aloof. Scene ends.

Modernity Spectatorship Power

A time when I feel the gaze is when I am forced to speak in front of a class. It is not so much that I am embarrassed or nervous about speaking, but rather people seeing me be nervous or to mess up while talking. If nobody was paying attention, which generally nobody is, I would feel much better about speaking, but it is because I can feel their gaze, or imagined gaze, that makes me uncomfortable. It is selfish and vain to think that people care, but I can't help feeling nervous about what people think about me when I stand in front of a lot of people. I have always felt like an observer, but when I am forced to speak in front of others it forces to me to be participatory, and as the author described I feel highlighted as an individual instead part of the group.

Blog 9: Modernity, Spectatorship, Power

During lectures and class not everyone asks questions. However, when I have one, I do not hesitate to ask it. I raise my hand and the teacher calls on me. When the teacher says my name, I am recognized from the group, and stand out… or gaze. It is in this moment that I feel like the whole class is looking at me, judging what I say, how I look, how I talk, and what I say.

Student dressed in contemporary clothing. Clothing should not stand out, student should lack self-confidence and appear nervous. Preferably male, Caucasian, average sized. Main character should not appear social or approachable and sits there quietly waiting for the lecture to start. Lecture hall is small in size, seating 40-50 students, multiple ethnic background divided into “cliques” by race. Walls should be bare and subject matter is not mentioned. Main character is seated third row up in the center aile. Main character clears his throat and raises his hand. Peeping from the back of the class, other students immediately lock into the character. The teacher stops his speech and focuses attention on the student. He calls the students name. The student freezes up for a second and seems very nervous.. There is a silence in the room, and the teacher locks in eye contact with the student. The teacher answers the question. The main character slightly nods with approval of the answer. The classes attention is still on him. The teacher acknowledges the Main characters understanding and dismisses the class. The moment of gaze has ended.

Blog 8: Adbusters “Facebook Suicide”

The term “Facebook Suicide” actually has a very unique implications to me. The reality is that I have actually committed “Facebook Suicide” two times, but after both times I revived it. At some points in time I was obsessed with writing on peoples walls and having them write back on mine. I clearly remember one point in my freshman year when I got 37 posts in one day. Boy was I happy that day. I started to get annoyed and frustrated when I would go days with comments. It made me feel like a loser. At some point I even would go on other people pages and compare how many comments I got. This obsession drove me mad and I deleted my Facebook, on two occasions.

That is when I had to alter the way I used and thought about Facebook. It was an understanding that Facebook is not reality, and is primarily a tool used to connect me. I try and use this tool as minimal as possible and use it mainly for staying in touch with people and event invitations. I do sometimes find myself accessing Facebook too often on some particular days, but I am aware of this. I quickly close the window if that is the case.

Facebook Suicide

I think I would stand to gain a lot from committing facebook suicide. I currently have a facebook, but not too long ago I deleted my account for a period of time. The reason I deleted my account was because I became disturbed with the idea that my identity was being created by it. People could look through my pictures and make assumptions about me, which really disturbed me. The reason that I reactivated my account was to get in touch with my friend who lives far away, but the reason I kept it was because of something else. Like the author says in the article, it was likely for selfish reasons. A facebook page is essentially a shrine to oneself. I wanted to be able to look at my pictures and have people look at pictures of me. When I reactivated my page I was sucked back into the vanity of facebook. Facebook becomes part of our discourse. We all talk about it and what happened on facebook. It warps our minds and forces us to all talk about the same thing. The photos that we post in some way make the events of our lives important or more real. When someone does try to delete their facebook, it is as easy as signing back in to reactivate it.

Blog 8: Adbusters

For me, committing ‘Facebook suicide’ wouldn’t be that big of a deal. I have a Facebook but I don’t use it that often. I don’t have anything against it, it just never really clicked with me. I think of Facebook more as a way to communicate and keep in touch with others than as an addiction to ‘self-promotion’ or ‘self-obsession.’ I’ve never really seen the appeal to spending hours on Facebook to update your account every second you get. Maybe I just don’t like the idea of everyone knowing every intimate detail of my life. Unlike Carmen Joy King, Facebook isn’t an obsession for me but a tool. It’s nice to have a quick and easy way to communicate with people no matter where they are. It makes keeping in touch extremely easy. If your ‘plugged in’ all the time it is pretty much impossible to not know whats going on. It’s an extremely useful tool. But that’s all it is. Facebook isn’t a substitution for ‘real’ life. It shouldn’t consume your life as it did for Carmen but augment it. Too much of anything usually is never a good thing.

Blog 9: Modernity, Spectatorship, Power

Although it isn’t every day, there is an event that causes me to be particularly self-conscious. It is because in this case, I know that everyone looks my way and scrutinizes my motives. This is the moment I stand up early during a test to turn it in. This is followed by a walk down the aisle in which all the students in the class including the teacher look and stare at my composure, the clothes that I am wearing, and other gives at attempts to identify stereotypes deeming me as a good student who did well, or a slacker who gave up. The look they give, that moment that I am highlighted as an individual above the rest to be examined is called the gaze.

Student, dressed in appropriate school wear, looking as if relieved from completing the test. Clothing is to be contemporary and match the era of the other students but stand out enough by contrast to show focus on singlular standing student. Preferably a male, not to tall, not too short, mostly average in composure so that it is difficult to place him into a social stereotype. Average lecture hall, stadium seating, with around 200 students of multiple cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The class is not specified in subject matter, main character is seated second from an aisle seat two-thirds up the lecture hall from the front, where the paper is to be turned in. As he stands up, the people around him move their stuff to ease his exit. When he walks down the stair aisle, heads turn for slight moments and he doesn’t notice the gaping eyes. The professor locks eyes with him as he slowly makes it down, not to make a sound even though he is distracting the whole room. As he turns in the paper, he says thank you lightly and the professor nods. He zips his backpack up, a standard jansport-like backpack with no significant markings, clean and mostly empty. He leaves through the most visible door to the camera which this whole time was from the perspective of a student sitting in the middle of a row two or three rows back from where main character was sitting.

Blog 8: Adbusters

I hate facebook. I hate it more than almost anything else in the world; however, I don't exactly see the point of committing "facebook suicide". Granted, if one is completely a victim to the site, a facebook "addict", and needs this type of liberation, maybe it is necessary. For a recreational user, though, it seems futile. Facebook provides a medium for communication that people would probably not have otherwise. I agree with the article's recognition of the narcissistic nature of the site, but there is no denying that in this day and age people would not put forth the effort to communicate with each other if it were not as easy as typing a banal statement on a "friend's" page or scrolling through a news feed to learn what people’s every move is. As much as I despise being apart of it, I see no need to take myself out of the loop to prove a point. I don't feel like I ever "need" to check my profile or view other's and rarely even stay on the site for more than ten minute increments. Though completely pointless and horribly masturbatory, I try to embrace facebook for what it is and feel like I have the habit under control, sharing the same sentiment as all addicts in existence.

Blog 9: Modernity Spectatorship Power

Awkwardness in the DC
Open scene with crowded dining commons.
Pan camera through tables of laughing groups of friends eating tasty food.
The groups are dressed in bright colors. Zoom on background of small table with only me seated at it. My clothes are cold colors, signifying unpleasantness. They are “the norm”; happy groups of people eating with friends. It seems a cheery scene until the focus is put on “the other. “
Once in a while, a brightly lit person will cast a disapproving look back towards me, insinuating with their eyes.
My food looks bland and I keep a scowl on my face. I eat it quickly, not stopping to fully chew my food, rushing to remove myself from the situation.
Camera follows me as I get up to leave. People glance at me with wonder at leaving already; they have just begun to eat.
The hallway to the dish return seems to go on forever; my steps appear to be in place rather than moving. Lighting is dark, menacing.
Eventually I reach the dish return, my dish is the first one to go on it.
I reach for a desert, cringing at knowing how bad it is for me to do so.
I find my way to the couches, once again smiling people in the background take up the view.
Before I have sat down, the desert is gone, and I rush to the dish return again.
I get to the front door of the dining commons, my face brightens. The color of my clothes becomes more vibrant, I seem happy. The camera pans up as I set off into the sunny day.

Blog 8: Adbusters

Facebook is an addiction that I satiate every single day. My presence on facebook is so important that I have notifications of activity send to my phone as text messages in real-time. Although I see nothing wrong with my addiction to this activity of measureless pointlessness, I do recognize it as a problem. I have over a thousand friends on this site, this number grows weekly as I meet more people and wish to follow up on them and vice versa. I embarrassingly admit that at events, I take pictures with full knowledge of what is and what isn’t postable on my personal page. The thought of facebook suicide is a terrifying one as many of the photos commemorating events, friendships, and memories are only available through facebook, and deleting my account would also delete my access to those well documented portions of my past. The only reason I would ever delete my facebook page would be if it interfered with my professionalism or due to my concerns with privacy and the fact that facebook is by far the book of my current life.

What does the future hold for my online socializing culture? The answer is in constant flux, I’ve had my facebook page for 6 years now and don’t consider what it was then a precursor to what it is now. There is no status quo for facebook, it is a strong corporate model that will evolve with our online habits and create the need for itself through penetrating our dependence of self-display. And even if facebook succumbs to widespread suicides, wouldn’t our need to put ourselves out there create the demand for a new similar medium?

Blog 9: Practices of Looking

In Practices of Looking, it mentions that the "term gaze is when we glance at an image with affection, awe, wonder or fascination" yet do people ever realize that we do that all the time? It is an unconscious action since we fail to notice that T.V. advertisements aim to gain our attention by making the audience feel inferior to what they do not have. Think about that one commercial of a there are two teen boys dressed as mascots as chicks and in the middle of work, a group of teenage girls confronts them and asks them if they wanted to go out after work. One of the boys is depressed because he has a major pimple on his lower cheek and does not want to embarrass himself in front of the ladies. His expression sounds like it is the end of the world as he asks "What should I do?" His friend recommends an acne cream which will relieve the pimple in a matter of 6-8 hours and before you know it, it will be gone in time before the girls come back. By the end of the day, the group of girls come back as the boy takes off the mascot head with a pimpleless face smiling. One of the girls hugs him and makes a remark on "let's pick up this chick". By watching this commercial, what do you think the audience will think? I thought that by having one pimple no matter what part of my face, I thought "Am I ugly? What will people think of me if I have it? Will they look disgusted and think I do not take care of myself?" I'm very self-conscience of how people see me as and I try to pretend like it is no big deal when in the end, it is. Let alone, my brother, who is in a worst situation I am in has more acne than me, yet he is not so affected at all. What is the big deal? Is it because he is already accepted in the community that he has so much confidence? Or is it just because I take things so seriously? Commercials, ads, and news today influence the community by trying to make everyone "gaze" at whatever product or whatever action they want to be done

Blog 8: Adbusters--Facebook Suicide!!!

When I read the article about Carmen's point of view of "Quiting Facebook", I thought it must have been hard on her to end it all with four clicks of the button. So many people are involved with the internet circle of personal clicks to engage themselves more to past buddies or even new ones that they forget that there are more events to do outside of the room. When I first signed up for Facebook, I did it because I was forced to do it. My friend, Kashmir, who was two years older than me "suggested" for me to sign up in order for me to contact her when she goes to college. A couple minutes later after signing up, I reunited with past friends from kindergarten all the way from high school to college. I was amazed on how many people I knew where signed on this site.
A couple weeks later, I was obsessed. I needed to feel like I need to comment on or blog something about my day. I took pictures, drew pictures, and even added as many cool things as I could find. But when you actually look at the reality of it, you realize that it is not the real you that is cool, it is the cyberspace icon you made for yourself, your internet life that makes you "cool". But in doing so, you dismiss the reality of real social experiences with people. So, I stopped going on it. To me, it wasn't just the comments or the updates your friends post on the website, but the games. Farmville, Cafe World, and also Restaurant City of course were ridiculous games, just by supplying your cafe with food or growing virtual food. It was a completely a waste of time. I knew it, but I couldn't stop. I felt really responsible.
If I was in the position to delete my account, the risk is not all that great. Sure, I would lose contact with all my friends, but in order to break out to the real world to show the real me is the real prize. I think that will be the real prize by just showing some rebellion. But it might take a lot of courage to do that right now.

Blog 6: Killing us Softly

Kilburne argues that the media’s portrayal of the ‘ideal’ woman and the objectification of a woman’s body to sell products have a profound impact on how women are viewed and treated by society.

Blog 8: Adbusters

I feel no need to commit facebook suicide; the thought of it strikes me as silly. What would be the point? The author of the article gave his reason for quitting facebook as narcissism and time commitments. Well there are two sides to a coin, and perhaps a third if you think outside the box. As much time as one spends creating a profile, choosing pictures, and ‘thinking of a clever status update;’ one also spends time viewing friends’ profiles and the-like. I have never been a proponent of large groups of friends. I find them shallow and meaningless, nothing more than bonded by a single word. Acquaintances is a better term for the majority of the people that one is friends with on facebook. Still, there is social interaction, there is caring. It is not a giant neon arrow pointing to oneself. The time taken out of one’s day to look at facebook, keep up with ‘friends’ may be antisocial, counter intuitive, but only because one is not doing it in person. In a world like ours, the hustle and bustle sometimes does not allow for this, and perhaps we shouldn’t care to find out this information if we can’t take the time out of our day to go in person, but this is the age of free information, unlimited access, no bounds of knowledge and peoples’ lives are included in that. Those who would keep you from knowledge, for any reason, should be questioned. Facebook may be a crude way to create bonds, but it does none the less. If I were to give it up, I am sure there would be people I meet in class, people in my dorm, and people who have similar ties as me that I would lose touch with. I may never speak to them again, but there is no harm in having a network, in allowing myself the possibility. I would argue that I would win nothing more than a few minutes of my day, and perhaps a few less thoughts about people that I care not for.

Blog 6: Killing Us Softly 3

You are affected by advertising regardless of whether or not you think you are, and it will try to sell you something; even if it is more than what it seems; even if it is an image, a person.

Blog 8: Adbusters

I believe that the article makes a good point about social networking amounts to narcissism. However, I do not believe that it is taken to such a high level of of narcissism. I check facebook only about 4 times a week, and I have no interest in posting much of anything that updates my status of any kind. Because I do not have the facebook problem as does the author of the article, I can't say that I would agree to commit "facebook suicide". There are many people that use facebook as a means to keep in touch with others and don't really care about the updating of their own profiles. I happen to be one of them.

I can understand the obsessions many have with updating their profile to portray an amazing self, but I believe there's more to a person's narcissism and expression of self. Part of being humans, we need acceptance from our communities. We long for the common interests within our groups to get along. This is probably the biggest and most powerful reason to why we obsess ourselves over social networking. It has provided and it continues to provide us with the ability to do exactly that. We can be as forward as we wish, we can express ourselves more vividly, and most importantly, we construct ourselves to be what we want others to want and will accept. Whether it is to emphasize one's unique difference or simplying joining the bandwagon, it's all about the worries of rejection in the real world that lures us to mold ourselves to be that ideal image.

I think I will certainly lose the contacts rather than the comments and judgments that others have on my profile. It is certainly an easy way to keep up with others, however, what I find interesting is that if we really cared about those that we want to keep up with, we would not have a problem contacting them via phone or other contact of some sort to get updates on our friends and family. So why do we not do that anymore? Because we never did that to begin with. That is, we only kept in touch with those we know we would talk to, but those on facebook you can check every single one of them on your list that you have probably only met a few times, an aquintance that you will never talk to again, but you still wonder what they are doing. If you really believed that facebook and other social networking really is a community, then "facebook suicide" should not prevent you from continuing those relationships you oh so ''treasure'' when in reality you would not have treasured if it required any form of contact besides "stalking".

Blog 6: Extra Credit "Still Killing Us Softly 3"

Kilburne argues in "Still Killing Us Softly 3" that advertisement has created a normalcy and structure of the way women are supposed to behave, thus, advertisement has permamently objectified women to the end result where all women feel brutally undesirable in their own skin and character when they compare themselves to the advertisements.

Thought this was kinda funny. and maybe related?

Blog 6: Killing Us Softly 3

The excerpt from Jean Kilburne’s “Killing Us Softly 3” we were assigned to watch was a lecture that looks at advertising from a new view, as a stereotype creator and strong reinforcer.

Blog 7: Advertising, Consumer Culture, and Desire

This advertisement (inset) is a parody of Calvin Klein’s Obsession line of cologne, which typically sells the “ideal image” of what a successful man should look like. Here it plays on the insecurity American males have with their penis size as what the true target of their obsession is, something that cannot be altered or helped and only create concern. The chapter “Advertising, Consumer Culture, and Desire” from Politics of Looking argues that the line between advertisements and their joking parodies is becoming less and less evident because of instant media such as the internet. Sometimes a spoof of an ad will sell more of the product that the original, less economically stimulating, advertisement. Additionally, spoofs draw more attention to the primary ad because it solidifies the original as a publically well-known piece that people can talk about openly as it has now become part of pop-culture. The actual ad is a simple picture of a publically established man of wonder who is subliminally speaking, this cologne makes me the man I want to be. The new ad is targeting the consumer and explaining that if this spectrum of marketing works on you, you are insecure and you can think of those who use these products as small-penised men.

killing us soflty

Killing us softly establishes in the first couple of minutes that media has an effect on society, the objectification of women in particular is examined. Killing us softly exposes how constantly cycling images of unrealistic women, stereotypes, and of women as sexual objects they perpetuate a false reality that can be very damaging to women and society.

I picked this fake Nike add for my blog response, to sum up the advertisement's meaning, the ad is trying to bring an awareness of the global economy and the effects of America's consumer culture on the third world to it's audience. One key difference (besides the fact that she isn't wearing shoes in a Nike add) is that this add advertisement doesn't generate any kind of desire;there isn't any goal or direction the audience gets the message form the add but doesn't get a quick fix. Even if a consumer sees the add and understands the inadequately of consumerism they can't do much, accept maybe not buy the product being mocked.

The is an anti advertisement in the truest sense of the word. The fake add gives no outlet for desire and does little to actually move one to act on an individual level. The “Nike” mock add doesn't fit in the mold set by consumerism it criticizes culture and politics instead of an actual person or changeable trait. Secondly the mock add doesn't offer any kind of fulfillment for the audience. Even if Nike were to go out of business the consumer would have one less bard of shoes and the poor third world workers would have less jobs, and if any good did come out of not buying “Nike” it wouldn't fulfill a consumer at a personal level.

To better understand the difference between the fake Nike add and a real add of the same type would be to see how an add of the same message would support consumerism. Say, the add mocked Nike but offered an alternative shoe company, one who's shoes where made in America by well paid unionized workers. That way the consumer would feel fulfillment form buying a product and consumerism would be supported by the advertisement; after all a need is being filled, one product isn't good( in this case Nike), and the one being suggested (the alternate company's) by the add is. The audience would not support extortion of third world workers and their spending would make them believe they made the world a better place.

Blog 7 Advertising Consumer Cultures

Popular advertisements go to great lengths to mystify the general public and leave them spellbound by transforming their products into spectacles; the Adbusters take these advertisements and reveal the ugly truth behind the glamor. Looking through the various spoof ads displayed on their website, some of them mocking my least favorite corporate monsters, I settled on their Just Douche It ad, a play on words of Nike's Just Do It ad campaign. The message behind the Just Do It ad campaign, was for aspiring athletes, amateur or otherwise, to forget about the little things holding them back from “playing the game” or achieving their goals, and to literally, just do it. Giving the campaign its due, it happens to be very inspirational. The Adbusters' Just Douche It spoof ad is not a mockery of Nike's campaign, it is actually a social commentary on a negative social phenomenon: douchebags.

For those of you unfamiliar with the slang term, allow me to elaborate. A “douchebag” is an ignorant, arrogant, inconsiderate, obnoxious, self-centered individual with an immature personality and poor social etiquette; that is putting it politely. The ad is making an observation, that many individuals who buy and utilize Nike products, are not actually athletes; instead they use the products to feign athleticism, in order to draw positive attention to themselves.

The Adbusters' ad and Nike's original ad provide an ironic contrast of messages. While Nike's ad encourages strength in character, the Adbusters' ad promotes lack of character. Instead of recognizing Nike as a symbol for building self confidence and strong ethics (and I say that with a straight face), people associate Nike with egocentrism, ignorance, and unsociable behavior. The social critique the Adbusters are making, is that inspirational images lose their positive meaning in the public sphere, because of unfavorable influences, many of which are actually caused by the people. It illustrates how expression and symbolism in advertising can be internally modified by consumers.

Spoof Ads

In the Adbusters spoof ad of Tommy Hilfiger, they are advertising a lack of individuality. The ad depicts a flock of sheep in front of an American flag with the subtext “follow the flock.” The American flag is perhaps meant to mock how it is considered American to be a consumer, and that to consume a supposedly American brand that is likely manufactured in a developing country is even more warped. But what the ad is mocking is the false sense of individuality that advertisers try to sell consumers. Advertisers try to sell the idea of an individual identity to a person if they consume their product. “Such a tact sells a kind of of pseudoindividuality, which the Frankfurt School theorists defined as a feature of the products of the culture industry, in which a false sense of individuality is sold simultaneously to many people.” So in fact the consumers are not being individuals at all, they are simply “following the flock.” Perhaps it is also a comment on the idea of American individualism, but how that idea of individualism is in fact very superficial, and often real individuals are actually outcasts in American society.

Blog 7#

In the anti-advertisement for Tommy Hilfiger, sheep are featuring in front of an American flag with the tag line reading “follow the flock.” The irony of the statement relates the idleness of the sheep to that of the consumer to whom an actual ad would be geared towards. This is referenced in the chapter from the Politics of Looking in the term 'commodity self,' which is the idea that oneself is constructed through the products they consume. Advertisements encourage the idea that the a consumer can use a commodity as a means of conveying their personality; an idea which is made obvious by the ironic anti-ad. Consumers who are unaware of this subversive tactic utilized by advertisements would be shown by the anti-ad the fallacy of utilizing a commercialized commodity to create a sense of self-identity. The anti-advertisement shows how real advertisements sell this false sense of individuality to everyone at once. Also notable is the use of the American flag to cultivate a sense of nationalism in a consumer. A relationship with national pride is created so as to encourage the consumer that the product carries with it a certain legitimacy and sense of values. A consumer would attach preconceived notions of ideology and identity with the product simply because of the color scheme and design of the back drop.

Blog 7: Advertising_Consumer_Cultures_Desire

The “McBaby” Ad Spoof is a fun way of expressing the negative consequences of fast foods such as McDonalds. McDonalds has a large part of its advertising to very young kids who absolutely crave the “Happy Meals.” The “Happy Meals” are advertised to this generation on TV networks designed for this age group. The “Happy Meal” advertising also changes with time and incorporates toys from the latest movies and TV shows to lure in this young audience.

“Happy Meal” advertisements never show fat “McBaby’s” like the one shown in the Ad Spoof. Not only does this baby look fat but he looks unhappy too. This is something undesirable and McDonalds does a good job in its advertisement to hide the truth from viewers. There are a number of health problems associated with junk food such as heart attacks, cholesterol, diabetes and possibly cancer. McDonald chooses to avoid the reality and focus only on this “fantasy world” sold to a very vulnerable young and audience.

This ad also suggests that parents should choose to feed their babies other foods besides fast foods, otherwise they will get a “McBaby.” However, I think that it is unfair for parents to have to clean up the media’s mess. The media should not even be advertising junk food to young kids. This is obviously having an effect on kids physically, as shown by the “McBaby,” but I’m sure that the psychological consequences are also substantial.

Stil Killing me Softly....

In Kilburne’s video, she argues that the media, looking at things economically, exploits women by objectifying and modifying their social position into one that is undesirable & negative, having a negative impact on the psychosocial states of women.

Blog 6- Extra Credit Killing Us Softly...3

Jean Kilbourne’s “Killing Us Softly 3” was about how the media has transformed images of women into nothing more than objects. Media as only focused on some features and objectified women, and since we are inundated with these images, we are brainwashed and start to believe that those features exemplify femininity.

Blog 7- Advertising, Consumer cultures, and Desire

I chose the Calvin Klein Obsession spoof ad with the girl hunched over the toilet. The “product” that the ad is selling is the supposed “ideal” body and the measures it takes to get there. The difference between this anti-ad and the actual Obsession ad is a commodity that plays on consumers’ desire to better their image and to “become a particular kind of person through acquiring and using a brand” (279). Consumers look at the original and ad feel that if they bought the fragrance or whatever product it is, they will somehow transform into a svelte model without a care in the world, or at least be seen as one by their peers. On the other hand in the anti-ad it shows the reality of the way models maintain their body, and that their lives are not perfect. According to the article, ads play on peoples’ emotions and desire to better themselves, and the ads try to play on this desire and make it so that the consumer feels that if they purchase the product their lives will be bettered. The actual Obsession ad plays on peoples’ inadequacy and funnel their mind to thinking that the model body they portray is what people should strive for. The anti-ad also plays on peoples’ desires, however, it plays on peoples’ desires to not be sick or helpless. Everyone wants to be perceived as strong and self-sufficient, but the image of the girl at the mercy of social pressures to be thin makes consumers feel pity for her.

Blog 7: Advertising, Consumer, Cultures, and Desire

The McDonald MacAttack ad criticizes McDonald for its unhealthy food products. It contradicts the images commonly created through McDonald’s advertising. They appeal to our desires by marketing their products as a cheap, delicious and quick meal. McDonald ads make use of what “Advertising, Consumer Culture and Desire,” calls the therapeutic ethos. They sell the idea that you’re not good enough on your own and that their product will make it better. They show images of people’s lives improving as they happily enjoying their meals. They appropriate images from ‘cool’ subcultures within the US to form an association between themselves and an image of ‘coolness’ to sell their product.

Their ads never show the after affects of unhealthy eating. Instead they feature skinny active models that smile as they enjoy their fast food or kids running around laughing and playing. This anti-ad however illustrates a striking picture that contradicts what McDonalds commonly advertises. It shows what advertisers what to hide—the consequences. Unhealthy food not only makes people fat but leads to heart disease, diabetes, and a number of other health problems.

However, I don’t think that it is just a critique of McDonalds but also a critique and warning for us consumers as well. We choose to continually eat fast food ignoring the consequences that it will have. It gives us a picture of what the future holds for those who refuse to consume in moderation. The person depicted in this image is now dealing with the unfortunate consequences of his indulgent behavior and is certainly not “lovin’ it” anymore.

Blog 7: Advertising, Consumer, Cultures, Desire

In the spoof ad "McDonald MacAttack" it shows a screen of the life line with Mcdonald's logo on it with the background of a couple of doctors trying to revive their patient who probably ate too much of what he bargained for. This ad shows about the unhealthy choices we make when eating too much take out which will lead us to become obese and turn out to be the guy who is on the table. When we watch Ronald McDonald ads, there are children talking or playing with Ronald with some kind of sweet moral behind it. Not to mention the toys you get with your "happy" meal. Or it shows two people singing or a mom giving her children some happy meal. What it shows is that you cannot be happy without it. Just like how "Advertising, Consumer, Cultures, and Desire" argues about how ads never say what you don't need, but what you do need to make yourself more happy, more confident to get into whatever fad is going on today. Unlike the poor guy who passed away from eating too many Big Macs or whatever was not aware about the dangers of his health and probably ate to make himself feel better. The artist of this ad clearly wants others to realize the dangers of eating too much McDonalds or any fast food areas. With the lifeline enlarged as the heartbeat comes to a sudden stop foreshadows the death of the patient in the background

Extra Credit Blog 6: Killing Us Softly

In the excerpt from Jean Kilbourne's "Killing Us Softly 3," the main argument is that the media portrays a skewed view of women, objectifying them in advertisements and forcing people to subconsciously objectify them as well, due to this idea's omnipresence in every day life.

Blog 7: Advertising, Consumer Cultures, and Desire

In the “Joe Chemo Bed” cigarette anti-ad, the main argument is that in reality, smoking will not make one cool, as stereotypically portrayed by the sunglasses wearing camel, but un-cool and hospital ridden, having to undergo chemotherapy. The obvious difference in strategies between this advertisement and a real Camel Cigarettes ad is how they attempt to make the view feel about themselves. As described in “Advertising, Consumer Cultures, and Desire,” real ads attempt to make one feel uncomfortable with themselves or something they are involved in order to prove that they need to buy whatever product is being advertised. In a real ad for cigarettes, this technique would attempt to show that the viewer needs cigarettes to be cool. The fake ad uses this same strategy of trying to get the viewer to feel a high emotional level, but in this case it is a an uncomfortable feeling, showing the reality of the product in order to get them not to buy it. Instead of proving that the viewer needs the product to be cool, it shows the opposite; that he or she needs to avoid it to be cool. Aesthetically speaking, another main difference in the real and fake ads is the art. Instead of the usual “cool” character with bright colors, the anti-ad features a sad, introspective looking character surrounded by light, dull colors. This also further adds to the case against cigarettes.

Blog 7: Advertising Consumer Cultures Desire

The “Just Douche It” spoof ad is trying to sell the idea that people who wear brand names, Nike in this example, look dumb and shouldn’t try to be a brand name rather than an individual. This ad as the chapter would describe it seems to be trying to change the idea of ‘coolness’ to that of douchiness in order to get people to open their eyes about the products and how they are acting. The ad is attempting a ‘culture jam’ against people who generally wear name brand products to get them to stop and think long enough to question their choices. An essential difference between this ad and the one it is mocking is that mainly of color. The Nike Swoosh is generally either solid white or solid black (depending on the background that it is on) but in this ad it is flamboyant green and pink, colors which some people may find offensive to gaze upon. These colors also clash and are not very trendy, so by insinuating that the people who wear Nike products are unfashionable, they attempt to dissuade them from buying the Nike gear. The colored swoosh is also compared to the glasses that the man is wearing, which are similarly colored and not very good looking. The purple wife-beater over the black t-shirt also adds to the stereotypically ‘douchey’ look that people attempt to pull off. Obviously this ad would also not work if he wasn’t actually wearing the clothing that the ad makes fun of, so almost every piece of apparel that he is wearing has a Swoosh on it somewhere.

extra credit: killing us softly

When I started watching the first 15 minutes of Killing Us Softly, I thought that it would be some clique argument on the impacts of what newspapers and advertisement commercials have on society. But Kilburne made an interesting argument on the influences media has on people; especially women. No adds say that you are fine the way you are, but how you need to make yourself better. Clearly individuals are ignorant to how media affects our everyday lives and that is what advertisers want the society to think. Even though we claim that we may not be affected by such trickery by "not paying attention to it" shows that even though we are now aware of it, we will subconsciously do it.
I especially enjoyed the part when Kilburne presents a picture of a female's body and reads article that literally denotes her body. "Are your boobs too small, too flat, too skinny" is what women have to face everyday. If it was the other way where the men had to face "Is your penis too small, too flat, too skinny" everyday, won't it have the same affect? the posters that we see everyday looks nothing more than a painting. No wrinkles, no scars, no pores! What is media really telling us? Is it telling us that we are not good enough to walk on the streets without their product? Are we not beautiful the way we are? This is the true effect of media and how it influences modern society. This is reality.

Blog 5 - Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx argues that the society is pretty much controlled by
one group that is dominating the other group. This splits
the economy in two categories, the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat. Similarly, Noam Chomsky makes the same argument
about the division of our society through the propanganda
model, where the limited ownership in media and government
controls the economy because they filter out what the public
receives in reportial informations about our nation and the
world. However, that is not the only similarity, another
important similarity is that Marx and Chomsky states the the
controlling force (bourgeoisie and corporations) do not have
the common people in mind, but rather of self- interest that
only benefits them! Yet another aspect that demonstrates the
common argument between the two authors is that the both
bourgeoisie and corporations owns most of what influences the
common people through their decisions and manipulations of the
properties, and media, respectively. Owership is not diverse!
Marx argues that this type of class system with mass
production has replaced connection with family ties and lost
all meaning to product building that gave a name to craftsmen.
Chomsky also argues the same idea that there's this mass
media that has lost much of its meaning in communicating to
the mass about the news through different channels by
filtering and manipulating the public's reactions and actions.
In all, Communist Manifesto and Propaganda Model tells the
same story of the unfortunate manipulation and forced-
direction of the common people under the few that controls the
direction!

Blog 5 The communist manifest and manufacturing consent by Alex Elliot

The communist manifesto and Manufacturing Consent share a lot in conman in regards to their out look on society. The communist manifest descries that there are two classes the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie controls the proletariat though financial repression, the proletariat must work under crushing wages and long hours, their ability to think and organize is limited. The propaganda in Manufacturing Consent is very similar in that propaganda is the controlling factor on the middle and lower classes or the non elite. The public in both sources face a lose of culture and creativity, the proletariat having their artisan jobs replaced by factories and the society having their local and more original programing taken off the air and new being presented with filtered and biased reporting. The way of life of both groups has been changed for the good of the elite. It seems to be the ongoing theme as society advances, first money now ideas.... I wonder what is next.

Blog 4 “Art, Entertainment, and entropy” by alex elliot

“Art, Entertainment, and entropy” makes the claim that media isn't exactly art, to put it in Stevens words “entertainment gives us what we want. Art gives us what we don't know we want.”. That being said the author builds on the claim basically saying that art imitates change while entrainment opposes change. Well to put it bluntly,... I disagree. In rearguards to new interned media and social networking such as you tube, and face book, whose primary use is entertainment there is a huge potential for change. In fact web sites like face book allowed for great social change, for instance Barack Obama has credited social networking sites for his election. Twitter allowed for the Iranians to communicate with the outside world during the recent revolts. In both instances there was a media buzz and in one a president was elected. If any thing the Internet and social networking sites in particular would be a form of art according to Stevens, it creates knowledge and thus expands on creative energy; yet these sites also provide a play ground to deliver entertainment, just about ever celebratory has a twitter page and you can find any show or movie on you tube for instance. Entertainment does not oppose change, it supports the channels in which change art, and creative energy may be delivered people flock to face book, and you tube to be entertained but they often leave with more then they came looking for, as a venture for entertainment gradually become a collection of knowledge information.

manifestoon

In Marx the “Communist Manifesto” he says that the power is held by the bourgeoisie. They in turn use that power to manipulate the masses, or the proletariat. They use propaganda to control the minds of the proletariat similarly to Chomsky’s media. Chomsky’s “Propaganda Model” is similar, but the proletariat is replaced by the media. He says that the power of manipulation is placed in the hands of the media and that specific corporations that control the media filter what the masses see. They manipulate what the masses see in a very ruthless way. Marx’s bourgeoisie is similar in their manipulation tactics. The power is concentrated in a very small group, and this group has the power of propaganda over the masses. This use of propaganda by the people at the top marginalizes people who want to speak out. People who are not part of the bourgeoisie or Chomsky’s equivalent are marginalized because they have no power to alter the system of propaganda, just like when Chomsky was denied an interview on a certain news program.

Blog 5: Visiting Artist Jesse Drew

Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto,” although a compelling document, may not have the endorsement of intellectual, Noam Chomsky. Marx states that it is the ancient corporations that fall daily when in actuality it is the major corporations that keep our American economy in check by being pseudo-monopolies. These companies control their markets by creating a customer base that is satisfied with their product and only wants more and more of it over time. It is through this need that smaller, newer companies can be opportunistic and attempt at the wealth of potential capital that these mega-corporations have spent decades creating. Marx explains that because all natural resources have been claimed, we are now trading services more than raw product. Chomsky says similarly that, in Manufacturing Consent, that it is opinion that is being traded around, that companies buy popularity and the ability to appear established. When a new market opens up, or a new medium for consumers to digest information through, it is quickly taken up and spread all across the globe. Marx speaks on the issue that there is no longer such a thing as “private property,” the advent of the internet only furthers this as this assignment itself, posted on our blog, instantly became the property of blogspot. Moreover, not even blogspot owns it as Google owns blogspot! And who owns Google? –The shareholders. There’s a certain feedback loop to this as the shareholders bought Google shares at a value that only was created by the end user’s usage of its service. Confusing as it may seem, the concept of ownership is one that barely exists in our multi-dimensional economy.

Art, Entertainment, Entropy

In the article Art, Entertainment, Entropy, the author argues that in commercial media we are never seeing anything new. Commercial media is profit driven and is constantly feeding us the same stuff over and over, which does not allow the viewer to grow and expand their mind. Viewers will simply watch what in presented to them without questioning and without a desire to embrace new entertainment. This interpretation of media is both present and well as not in new media. New media, such as Youtube, or having the ability to put music onto Myspace, or blogging, gives people a new form of expression. It has the potential to not be formulaic but instead to be creative. It gives people the opportunity to discover new forms of art. Social networking sites on the other hand seem more to fit with the author’s interpretation of media. Facebook does not really allow people to think creatively. It is just like the formulaic sitcoms on television. It is a way for commercial media companies to ensure that we are all thinking the same thing. Facebook is just another method of controlling our minds to ensure that people are all thinking the same way. It does not allow you to expand your mind.

Blog 4: Visiting Artist Darrin Martin

Wallace Stevens explains in his article, “Art, Entertainment, Entropy,” that media such as television uses dramatic elements and emotional responses to include a message possible unrelated to the narrative or content. He heavily attacks the concept of genre as the single most limiting system of classification by creating expectations of content that cannot normally be broken. He explains these concepts of his in terms of science, which are very comforting to me as a analytical scientist. His explanation of feedback loops are especially applicable to the internet phenomenon, youtube. Youtube is a case example of work creating more work as when one searches something; one will find many, if not hundreds, of the same video done by different parties. Although youtube’s genre system is not the same as film genre breakdowns, I can summarize the classification system as music videos, video blogs, candid capture, informative, and mashup. Each of these videos if inspirational enough, create an onslaught of works that only parody them. Youtube’s response video feature makes this loop very evident. Twitter and Facebook both are good examples of Steven’s give and take model represented by the laws of thermodynamics. When one posts or messages something, it almost always elicits a response of sorts. This level of causation only emphasizes that everyone has an opinion. Media such as television exploits our desire to speak out and presents imagery or situations that subliminally sell us something in return.

Blog 5- Manifestoon!

Jesse Drew’s “Manifestoon” transcript of Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” parallels Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model. Marx describes the social divide between the bourgeoisie and the proletariats. Where the bourgeoisie is “the executive of the modern state” and essentially has total control over the nation, similar to Chomsky’s media. Marx discusses the oppression that the proletariats endure under the bourgeoisie thumb, and how they are manipulated to the executives’ liking.
What struck me when I was reading the transcript was that the manifesto said that the bourgeoisie concentrates “property in a few hands.” This concentration of power is similar to Chomsky’s argument that the nation is controlled by the media which is in turn controlled by a select number of corporations. The ideas that the proletariats are exposed to are the ideas of a few men and are in the bourgeoisie’s best interest not in the people’s best interest. The media and the bourgeoisie do this in a callous way that does not put care about people’s relationships to one another or their nation, rather considering them as business pawns or “cash payment.” Chomsky and Marx both parallel the ruthlessness of media and the bourgeoisie respectively. They both describe how the elite like to embed themselves in every aspect of every life in order to manipulate and dictate how society should run, in their eyes.
The power of the non-elite is little to none, although the elite make them feel as if they have the power of free speech. However, the means to spread the message is not available, so although the non-elite may have an opinion and may have something to share, they do not have a means to share it, essentially being marginalized by the media or bourgeoisie.

Blog 5 Manifestoon

Chomsky and Marx are definitely dissatisfied with how government, in this particular argument the capitalist US government, treats the public majority, and have a similar goal in mind with the presentation of their opinions: to speak out to the better judgment of the public masses and remove the propagandistic wool that the government has pulled over eyes of the people.

Marx and Chomsky separate the social classes into two distinct groups, in which a small collective of educated, charismatic individuals, who wield the majority of political power and control the means of economic production, deceive and thereby exploit the working majority. Marx asserts the two groups are, in fact, “hostile camps”, in that the working class (the Proletariat) are in an ongoing war with the state-running class (the Bourgeoisie) over how the country will run its economy; Chomsky's view relates to Marx, because he describes a similar (though less war-like) social structure, in which a “specialized class” is intelligently designed to look after the general public's vast number of affairs.

However, there is a divergence between their outlooks. Marx believes that the bourgeoisie “conquered for itself... exclusive political sway... for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie...” (Communist Manifesto); in his eyes, government control exists solely and always existed for the purpose of “[an] organized power of one
class oppressing another.” (Communist Manifesto) Chomsky does not so much counter Marx, as he does present an alternative viewpoint, that government control exists because an otherwise unrestricted public would “[lack] the humanity to submit to a civil rule” (Manufacturing Consent); therefore, by this interpretation, government control exists for the overall protection of its citizens from harmful disorder.

Marx and Chomsky agree, then, in the respect that they both believe that the government is corrupted by certain individuals (selfish or otherwise) who use the power entrusted to them by the public, to exploit and mislead the public for their personal interests or the interests of other individuals involved with running the state; this is usually accomplished through the use of propaganda. Marx mentions how the bourgeoisie “converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the scientist, into its paid wage-laborers.” (Communist Manifesto); considering this from a propagandistic position, it could be argued that Marx means the bourgeoisie use these specialist groups to create and support government propaganda, because the public views these men and women as well-educated individuals who occupy honorable professions. Chomsky likewise notes that in a democracy like the US, “you have to control what people think” by “[creating] necessary illusions...” (Manufacturing Consent) The purpose of these illusions, as he so puts forth, is the “mobilization [of] public support for the [government's] special interests...” Taking into account that Chomsky believes the “stupidity of the average man” (Manufacturing Consent) prevents him from making decisions based exclusively on fact, it could be argued then, that Chomsky also believes intelligent individuals would likely take full advantage of the average man, because “blind faith” keeps the average public passive, so long as the government keeps up the appearance that it is working for the greater good of its citizens.

Blog 4 - Art, Entertainment, Entropy

There's a difference between art and entertainment media. That is, commercial entertainment creates higher degree of ignorance and lack of learning. While art increases and provokes creative thinking and therefore, increase learning. This idea is well argued by the author of "Art, Entertainment, Entropy".

The author argues that commercial entertainment can never provide anything new and different if they are profit-motivated. Because of that, he believes that there must be an understanding between the differences in art and entertainment. He uses the concept of entropy, which is a natural occurence in the universe, to describe the natural behaviors of humans in terms of creative thinking and learning. Commercial entertainment is not art because of the status quo that is reinforced by triggering the same reaction and stimulus to a film that does not force the viewer to open their creative thinking and learn anything that they have not already predicted to know. Entropy is seen as a degree of ignorance. Information and the viewer are considered different systems that exchange through energy. So, for commercial entertainment, it is like a closed system where there's high degree of ignorance because it dominates the feedback process because of redundant information that does not provide change. Therefore, entropy, essentially commercial entertainment, opposes change and learning. However, art is negentropic. Art and human work the opposite way of entropy. The feedback process dominates and we share information that is new and unrecognized before. Thus, we become more selfenriched and regenerative. The author finalizes by stating that "When finally we erase the difference between art and entertainment—as we must to survive—we shall find that our community is no longer a community, and we shall begin to understand radical evolution."

The author of "Art, Entertainment, Entropy" critique is supported and inconsistent with today's interactive entertainment media like youtube, facebook, and twitter. While there are some interactive entertainment like facebook that may contribute to the status quo in terms of providing information that the viewer wants to see and does not challenge creative thinking and learning.

However, the argument is mostly inconsistent or rather it shows a convergence of art and entertainment, blurring the differences between them. How is this happening? Because interactive entertainment media contains a much broader and less restricted group of providers of information, not all are profit-motivated. Thus, art and entertainment is not as distinct because of the allowance of the public to interact and increase the feedback process to become more selfenriching and push towards more learning and creative thinking. So today's interactive entertainment media shows a slight movement in contributing to redefine the gap between entertainment and art. As the author has stated,"When finally we erase the difference between art and entertainment—as we must to survive— we shall find that our community is no longer a community, and we shall begin to understand radical evolution."

Blog 4- Art, Entertainment, Entropy

Wallace Stevens’ Art, entertainment, Entropy delineated and critiqued the difference between art and entertainment. He concluded that Art explains and “gives us what we don’t know we want,” while entertainment exploits and “gives us what we want.” Also, he describes the effects of entertainment on entropy, which is considered the level of our ignorance on a subject that can be perpetuated with redundant information. Increased entropy will lead to regression in society while negentropy, or negative entropy, promotes and results in society’s progression.
I feel that the new modes of entertainment truly do exploit society. Stevens made a valid point where he said that “the spectator is reduced to a voyeur.” Through YouTube, Facebook, or twitter we are able to live vicariously through other people. We can flip through photos of their vacations, watch them drop, pop, and lock it, or even follow their every move throughout the day. All while we sit at home. It is a good example of increased entropy, or ignorance, in the world because we are not absorbing material that would enhance our lives or progress us in any direction. Rather we simply take in whatever is handed to us without any argument or analysis. Instead of expanding our minds and creating some sort of change in the world with new ideas or beliefs, we are creating negative change by digressing into sponges and remaining in stasis. Although these forms of entertainment have brought us to a different level of communication which can be considered progress, they have changed society’s status quo. What was once somewhat taboo like mass e-mails or mass Facebook friend invites are now every day. Instead of making lunch dates we make skype dates. Our virtual entertainment makes it easy for us to keep in touch but it is also causing us to become more reclusive because we technically anything we ever want or need is just a click away.

Blog 5: Visiting Artist Jesse Drew

The commonalities between Karl Marx and Noam Chomsky's descriptions of society are pretty clear. Marx claims that social structure is broken up into two groups, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the latter functioning as the masses that are at the mercy of the few elite (the former). Chomsky's media model functions in the same way. The media acts as the bourgeoisie in modern society. It is owned by a select few elite companies that have a monopoly on advertisements and the like, and is essentially able to tell the masses what to think through this control. Just like the five man companies that currently control the media, what the bourgeoisie says is the only reality that is told to the public and therefore is accepted. Similarly, a majority of the people in modern society play the role of the proletariat, at the mercy of the media and subject to their control. Further, the media, just like Marx's bourgeoisie, sees the masses merely as potential money. They are solely a market that can be sold to. As Marx says, this is "merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another." Chomsky's explanation definitely seems to fall into this categorization as well.

Blog 5: Manifestoon

Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” divides society into two categories: the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the upper class who possess both power and wealth. The Proletariat are the low class masses who are exploited by the bourgeoisie. In Noam Chomsky’s “Propaganda Model” the bourgeoisie media elite dominate and control the masses or proletariat. All the power is concentrated with in a small population of elite. These huge conglomerates have a monopoly on setting the agenda. We proletariat are helplessly reliantly on mass media for all forms of information ranging from politics and world economics to the latest celebrity fashion and style. Noam Chomsky gives the example in “Manufacturing Consent” of the news coverage of the East Timor genocide. The media didn’t cover anything about what was happening so the American public was completely ignorant of the atrocities occurring in East Timor. The media elite had complete control of the information available to the public.

Marx then goes on to say the “bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” Money drives the media industry. According the “propaganda model,” media conglomerates are not responsive to the people but to corporate interests. There primary goal is to make money. The New York Times contains more adds (40%) then it does actual news (60%). Media is bombarded with advertisements and tailored to fit the interests of sponsors.

Both are critical of the self-interest of the bourgeoisie media elite who manipulate and coerce the masses to their will. They condemn the centralization and concentration of power into a few people/conglomerates.

Blog 4: Art, Entertainment, Entropy

Stevens argues that entertainment media is entropic—leading to a decrease in the potential for change. It is formulaic repetition, manipulating the viewer by making use of conditioned responses which destroys our ability to appreciate and participate in creative processes and encourages unthinking response to daily life, inhibiting self-awareness. Art on the other hand, breaks free from conventions creating a new experience and facilitating change.

Newer interactive entertainment media opens media up allowing it to become a form of expression. Unlike profit-driven companies individuals are more inclined to use media as a form of art and creative expression. People can now share their videos posting them online. Sites like YouTube allow people to not just be passive viewers manipulated by the commercial entertainer but to become producers who actively express their creativity.

Also, interactive media like Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter are not entropic. He describes entropy as a “lack of information” which does not describe these types of social networking media. New technologies have rapidly increased the speed and the amount of the flow of information. People seem to share every single intimate detail about their life on their webpages. They put an exorbitant amount of time and energy into their Facebook shaping and altering it to fit their needs. It is constantly being updated-changing over time to reflect the changes in its creators. This contradicts Stevens’s idea that entertainment media is “inherently entropic [and] opposed to change.”