Ways of Seeing

John Berger's one of Europe's most influential Marxist critics, yet draws strong and contradictory reactions to his writing. He was an incredible informative, but has been accused of falling prey to "ideological excesses" and praised for his "scrupulous" observations on art and culture. Berger started his work off as a series on television. The main idea he discussed in numerous of his books was, “the way we establish our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words, but words can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it” (97). We presume all things are believable and think that everyone sees what I see. When really everyone thinks about things differently and sees things from another perspective.

The main point in Berger's argument in Ways of Seeing is that art work is not what it used to be. The way we look at things has drastically changed in the past century. For instance, photography and the ability to replicate and edit images have become more popular. Original images are being easily replicated and can be photo shopped so much to where they don’t even look like the same image. The meaning of these works of art is changing in two ways. First the meaning that the art work conveys to the audience is changing mainly because our way of thinking about things has changed within the last century. Secondly, the monetary value of the art work is changing. Berger refers to art as a thing for all classes of people not just a privileged few. The physical work is no longer the value it’s the rare part of the art that is becoming more important.

Many people presume things that are believable and think everyone sees what I see. Berger pointed out, “all images are manmade” (98). Every painting leaves room for interpretations and depending on the person it determines what you think about it. Another thing that can affect the way someone looks at a painting is the way the painting is represented. People tend to add assumptions to many considering beauty and civilization.

The beginning is the hand of the painter, which Berger shows has many perspectives. The intent of the painting can go beyond what the author originally had in mind. Berger describes this as mystification. The majority of the people that had access to the beautiful art work were the bourgeoisie. Owning one became a status symbol. Secondly, is becoming the subject of art. Very few people back then could afford the paints and materials needed to create art. This was quite a tragedy that interfered with sending visual messages.

Ways of Seeing

John Berger is one of Europe's most influential Marxist critics, with considering work. He has been recognized to write in tones such as quiet, powerful, thoughtful and measured. Berger started off his work as a seris on public television. Which made serious claims of what was happening in the United States. Bergers later wrote many books whom he choosed to focus on "the way we estalish our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words, but words cad never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it"(97). He also sais that the way we see things is affected by what we actually think of it or believe. We presume things that are believable and think everyone sees what I see. He pointed out, "all images are manmade"(98). Because a picture even the simplest hasbeen given by men many interpretations. The way an image is represented also affects of ways of seeing the real image. Peaple add assumptions many concerning, beauty, civilization, and so on. Berger says these assumptions, "they mistify rather than clarify"(99). After an image has been seen we seem to situate ourselves in them. We are shown pictures of the past and some how we situate ourselves in the past so if we to be kept from seeing this important images its like stealing us the right to know. We accept these mistification of images because like Berger agrees, "we still live in a society of coparable social relations and moral values"(102). Then the camera came and seemed to destroy or rebuilt these mistifications. Now the idea of images were timeless. And that affected the way men saw. Now paintings sometimes have words attached to them to add value. The invisible power of a picture of the past is to share historical experience, "that is to say that experience of seeking to give meaning to our lives, of trying to understand the history of which we can become the active agents"(118). Berger concludes that wher we situate ourselves in history we make the entire past a political issue.

Ways of Seeing

There are a set of commercials that I have seen recently that feature young artists. One is of a young man who is making copies of classical paintings and adding his own personal twist. He is taking paintings by artists like James McNeill Whistler and Norman Rockwell and putting them into a context that he can care about. Basically he is taking classical paintings like the famous portrait of Whistlers mother (an old lady in a rocking chair, at the Louvre in Paris France) and changing the subjects ethnicity to something other than white. His reasoning's being that its hard for people to care about art that they cant relate to, and if all of the subjects are white and your not its hard to relate to. This relates to what John Berger is saying in "Ways of Seeing" in so many ways.

First the "cultural mystification" of the past. All of the paintings that this young man is repainting represent the white monopoly on contemporary and classical art. All of the paintings are so well known that even if you cant remember the name of the painting you could still recognise it. By repainting them with subjects that he can recognise and relate to he is creating a new interpretation of the paintings. He is also contributing to the appeal of the paintings by widening the range of its audience. This in turns challenges the notion of art being for a privileged minority.

So how did this young man achieve this, did he spend countless hours in museum observing the works of the masters, probably not. The increasing availability of prints is what helped him to create his own unique versions of well known works of art. But is also the way that a lot of us are exposed to classical art now, be the reproduction form a text book a warped add in a magazine.

The meat of Berger's argument in Ways of Seeing is that art is not what it used to be. The way that we see things has changed significantly in the last century. Part of this change involves photography and the ability to replicate great works of art, and provide it to the general masses who would have not normally been exposed to such things. The meaning of these works of art are changing in two ways, first the meaning that they convey to the audience is changing. Partially because our own way of thinking about things has changed so much in the past century and because of the wider audience that now have access to such work. Then there is the monetary value of the paintings that is changing. The appeal of the actual physical work is not longer the value, its the pedigree of the work that is becoming important. Berger warns us to not let art be a thing of the privileged few, that art is a thing for all classes of people.

A Way of Viewing “Ways of Seeing”

From a cave painting to holograms, mankind is always trying to expressing himself without using written dialogue. This process has incredible depth and purpose. Its meaning transcends the subject of focus to show us a piece of history literature can’t reach. The medium and availability has also undergone a metamorphosis as technology advances. In the essay “Ways of Seeing”, John Berger makes many insightful observations of where man’s eye meets his hand and how we give the product of that union value.

Dialogue begins with the eye and not the mouth. Berger opens up by giving us our point of visual origin; our view of ourselves in our environment. The world unfolds around us and we have several ways of describing it. Many use literature but the most potent method is always visual. Wither it’s a photo or finger painting we gain special insight into not only the event, but the one going through the event. Berger includes photography in this analysis. While it is not as personal as paint and pencils, it is still a moment that a person thought important enough to hold on to.

Holding on to moments changes not only our perspective of the world; but of ourselves as well. Berger writes “Soon after we can see, we are aware that we can also be seen”.(98) Berger points out that as we capture the world around us, we are captured by others in their world perspective. It doesn’t need to be in the form of art. By this time it could just be in some ones conversation about the culture in which he lives. It’s humanity attempting to organize its existence.

As people make sense of their environment, they will ultimately document it. We will take what is seen and place it into a form that others can take part in. The beginning is the hand of the painter, which as Berger shows has multiple perspectives. The intent of painting can go beyond what the artist had in mind. Berger describes it as mystification. It is a two fold problem. First, the majority of people who had access to beautiful works of art were the social elite. Viewing the masterpieces, let alone owning one became a status symbol. Second is becoming the subject of art. Very few people had the resources to become immortal though the use of paints. Here is one of the tragedies of sending a visual message.

Most of those painting the elite were people whom the elite would otherwise avoid. Berger sites the life of Frans Hals. Hals was living a life of total poverty when he was commissioned to pain Regents of the Old Men’s Alms House. Little is known about the personal interaction between Hans and the regents, but Berger illuminates something amazing. The artist exposes two points of view in his painting. First is the reflection of the subject. The wealthy regents were being painted by a human who was most likely of little worth in their eyes. The commissioned work was likely to be the only time they would be in same room. Next is Hans looking into their faces and painting them in a way that would not betray any form of prejudice or contempt.

Berger also shows us how we link to the past through the paintings that pass the test of time. As we make note of the faces and places. We associate ourselves and those around us as apart of our normal functioning. Berger writes “We accept it in so far as it corresponds to our own observation of people, gestures, faces, institutions. This is possible because we still live in a society of comparable social relations and moral values.”(102) As we look into the worlds that have been painted, we inevitably see our world in them. The expression of disappointment which Leonardo da Vinci can lay down on canvas could just as easily be present on the faces of our parents.

As time progresses and photography moved in, Berger notes the change. Photography removed a sense of the timeless. It became a captured moment of real time without moving through the filter of the mind. A photo can be placed geographically where a painting, even of a true landscape, is still a product of an artist’s imagination; molded to describe a location the painter once occupied. Photography isn’t finished here.

Photos have also changed how we see paintings. Pre-photo, we would need to go to great lengths in order to experience the hard work of the masters. Now we only need to open a book or browse the internet. The freedom of access and the quality of replication have taken the importance way form the skillful hand of the craftsman and moved it to the authentication of the reproduced work. Reproduction can also sacrifice the forest for a single tree. We crop and focus on one aspect of the painting; forget that every part of the piece has meaning. This will eventually push us into artistic inflation, where there are so many versions of a painting that it will be common and mundane. We will no longer give it value because of the stroke of the brush but the luck of the paintings survival. Even the experts speak less of the master, and more on the lineage of the owners.

Mass reproduction has also changed the perception of the original art. It began as a treasure for those in power. With limitless access by any social class, the aristocrat can no longer possess art. It gains greater appreciation. People who care very little about its sales record over the last three centuries can look at it and see it for what it was intended; a gifted person presenting their view of the world.

Deep down, I feel as though we all knew what Berger wrote about. When ever we stand in front of one of the great renaissance masterpieces, most people will find themselves in awe. Berger has helped us all by illuminating why the awe exists. I never notice the transition from two dimensional stain glass windows to Salvador Dali’s melting clocks. With the window, all that can be done is the visual recognition of human subjects. We have never met anyone who lives in a flat environment. We can marvel at its beauty, but something is missing. On the other hand, Dali’s melting clocks don’t exist in our reality either, but his sense of perspective draws you into a world of his creation. Both works of art are windows. One you look through, the other you look into.

Berger’s view on reproduction of art was refreshing as well. People who bathe in power and status always make a fuss when someone threatens that power. Resources are no longer a factor in the possession of fine art. Posters and t-shirts carry familiar images and the only party hurt by this is the upper class. Art is now for everyone and culturally speaking, everyone now wants are. The possession has taken priority now. Berger shows the statistics of gallery attendance and the group which dominates is the educated upper class. They still attempt to hold on to the viewing aspect of elitism. As reproduction becomes main stream and the layman has the same amount of access, we will become less inclined to listen to an expert. As we see the art, we will begin to form our own opinions and observation. We go right back to Berger’s first point. Once we have seen it, we will begin to say it.

There was one thing I think Berger missed in regards to replication of art. Artists today take full advantage of prints in order to increase profits. It is much less work to create one painting and mass produce it. The value of the print increases the closer you get to the first one produced, but how does it matter. It no longer comes from the hand of the artist and the original is still far from you. I suppose this is the downside to reproduction. It’s not intended for public view; instead it is for the greed of the creator. I doubt the greats through out history would partake in prints of their art.

Berger was incredibly informative. As a recreational artist, I never realized how much of my views go through my hands. This explains the trends I see in my work. It is nothing outrageous or strange; more like a fragment of my personality. In my future work, I suppose I’ll be looking for how I express my world view. Berger’s essay has aided in my understanding of me and my artwork. I think that my next piece will be a little more interesting.

Word Count: 1458

Photo

Ryan W

Word count

(824)

  "Photo"

In “On Photography,” Susan Sontag maps out chronological events in photography from the early 1900s to today.  She discusses the different uses of photography and photographic images and how they’ve changed over time.  Sontag introduces the subject by saying “Photographed images do not seem to be statements about the world so much as pieces of it, miniatures of reality than anyone can make or acquire” (4).  Photographs are history; they’re records, hard evidence that show a glimpse of something or someone at the moment in time in which the photograph was taken.

 

Sontag notes that often we see photographs as proof of something we’ve heard but haven’t quite believed.  She challenges the idea a photo represents truth when she talks about photographers such as Dorothea Lange taking dozens of pictures of a subject “until satisfied that they had gotten just the right look on film” (6).  She says photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings or drawings.

 

 

Over time, photography has gone from something that required patience, time and money to something used by almost everyone.  Sontag states that family households with children are twice as likely to have a camera; “not to take pictures of one’s children…is a sign of parental indifference” (8). 

 

Sontag says that “most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable that they encounter.”  I feel that the other side of the story would be that taking a photograph may lessen the moment at the time, such as if you’re making people pose – but if you’re taking a picture of an object you can capture the image in less a second and you can still appreciate the object after you’ve taken the picture.  One might feel that taking an action shot of a animal or a similar situation takes away from the moment, but taking a photograph can help keep your mind from distorting the image from what you wanted to see to what you did see.  A photograph can also make that moment immortal because you always have that picture; you can keep it in an album with all of your memories (or “slices of time” as Sontag calls them), and you can show all your friends.  A good example of this is National Geographic – the  photographs in this magazine share and make tangible moments that readers would otherwise never know had existed. 

 

Sontag goes on to quote Diane Arbus, a photogragher who stated that she always thought of photography as “taboo”, and that’s why she liked it.  Sontag responds that “using a camera is not a very good way of getting at someone sexually” because “there has to be distance” between the photographer and the subject (13).  On a blind date, you don’t start taking pictures of the person you’re seeing;  you want to be close and sensual to that person, not distance yourself from them.

 

On page 7 Sontag introduces a theme that runs throughout her paper; “There is an aggression implicit in every use of the camera.”  On page 14 she talks further about how people can get “trigger happy”, so to speak.  She makes a comparison between a camera and a gun, and says that the “camera is sold as a predatory weapon.”  I think an example of this would be the paparazzi, skewing the truth by taking hundreds of pictures and usually picking the most controversial.  Sontag continues “…there is something predatory in the act of taking a picture.  To photograph people is to violate them… it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed” (14).  I’ve heard that some cultures believe that photographing a person is to steal a part of that person’s soul. 

 

I do not think of this as true but our culture is a little more caught up in a picture-frenzy than some.  Taking lots of photographs helps establish social networking and identify oneself with others; examples of this might be facebook and myspace.  People sometimes put erotic, almost pornographic pictures of themselves on these sites.  This is another example of a camera being used like a weapon, but in this case people are choosing to hurt themselves with it.

 

Sontag  discusses how photographs taken in war can provoke “moral outrage” and cause political action.  But the more violent or pornographic images we see, the less shocking they become and the more it becomes okay.  This can numb our society and actually prevent action. 

 

Sontag concludes this paper with the idea that “photography implies that we know about the world if we accept it as the camera records it.  But this is the opposite of understanding…” (23).  Sontag argues that true understanding only comes through questioning something, not just accepting what it looks like on the surface.  She leaves us with the idea that our culture is made of “image-junkies” – “having an experience becomes identical with taking a photograph of it” (24).

Linda Segar "Creating the Myth"

The Blogger Myth

The myth so happens the be that this article was fulfilling, meaningful, or at least mildly entertaining. Segar has managed to do nothing more than walk the reader through a step by step process of what the reader probably already knows about what they like to see in a movie. One could not promote this article as clever unless they broke down the movie "Eight Legged Freaks," and convinced the reader why they might enjoy that "Myth."
I wonder if Segar truly understands what a "Myth" is. Yes a myth is typically a story that may have little truth or reality; however breaking down the typical storyline, buildup, or character growth does not entitle one to entitle a section of your essay the "Hero Myth." Myth is thrown in so often to this article that I have tendency to seriously doubt Segar.
Now after sadly attempting to discredit Segar, I will attempt to do so further. Although she did use the best storyline ever created within the movie industry (yes ladies and gents that is Star Wars), She could have simply called her article "A Break Down of How Star Wars Plot, Ideas, and Growth Should be Emulated Throughout All Movies." One does wonder though, if perhaps her husband made her watch the series just one too many times, she snapped and decided to write about it, and near put me to sleep. "In Star Wars, the first time we see Luke Sky-walker, he's unhappy about having to do his chores, which consists of picking out some new droids for work." Well 'Dr. Phil,' whatever shall we do with this character? Oh I know, how about a ten part break down of how a typical character develops in a movie plot line, based off Star Wars with a few simple story line add ins.
Segar finishes her article with a grand send off how how we the reader can apply all the idea's we have just learned into our own writing. Recommendation... "it's not a bad idea to reread some of Grimm's fairy tales or fairy tales from around the world to begin to get acquainted with various myths." In a culture saturated with the love of myths, I thank you for your stroke of genious Segar.

Creating the myth

Why do some stories capture our imaginations, while others don't? Why do some heroes inspire while others annoy? Linda Seger has an idea about that and she shares her formulas for creating heroes that people love in this selection Creating the Myth from Making a Good Script Great.


To begin Seger describes the myth as, "the story beneath the story". Despite cultural back grounds and geographical separation, the myth is universal. It speaks to us all on the most basic human levels. A good story be it a movie, comic, or book will incorporate the different aspects of myths.


The central and most important part of all myths is the hero. After all without Jason there would be no reason for the Argonauts to set sail. Without the hero there is no story. Seger has a formula form making heroes. In a nut shell Seger's formula is to first introduce the hero before he is a hero, in his average surroundings. This is so that we can sympathise with the pre-hero. Next introduce something wild into the hero's mundane life, and give his something to fight for too. Now we the audience get to sit back and watch the pre-hero blossom into a eral hero.

The introduction of the hero as just another average Jo is very important; its part of the reason why we care so much about the hero. They are a direct reflection of us, they could have been us. By watching our once normal heroes do great things, we realize that we to can do great things. That's why Spiderman is a better hero that Superman. We can all relate to Peter Parker in a way that we never could to Clark Kent. Its also why Batman is a better hero that Wounder woman. Even though Bruce Wane is an over achieving rich boy we appreciate is lack of super powers. Wounder Woman on the other hand is totally alien. Not many of us share the experience of growing up on an island with a bunch of Amazons.

There are two types of myth searching and healing. In the old myths that involve a search there is always something to go get. Some very physicalobject that must be attained. A lot of modern day comics still involve the search myth but instead of the exterior physical object, they are searching for an intangible idea. They wish to rid the city of crime, this is something that is an interior search. The second myth is the healing myth where the hero starts out broken and the trials he faces heal him. Love is a strong force in the healing myth. The Punisher is a good example of a broken hero in a healing myth. It this type of myth is not the heroes average Jo background the we sympathise with its his hurt and loss. After all if you can make the Punisher cry about his girlfriend, then maby you don't need to feel so bad about shedding tears for your own hurt. Just please refrain form blowing John Travolta up.

The formula is not set in stone, and there are good stories out there that may only contain small amounts of it, but that's sort of the point. Seger is not asking us to just keep remaking the same old myhts. She is offering a way to make an ok story great, by giving it more depth and meaning.

Creating the myth

In the Twilight (Meyer, Stephenie) saga Bella Swan is the hero. The Volturi and Edwards’s reluctance to change her into a vampire are the obstacles that she must overcome. In Twilight Bella Swan comes to Forks to spend time with her dad while her mom travels with her stepfather. There she meets Edward who she finds to be mysterious. She falls in love with him, and him with her, however he warns her that she should stay away from him for safety. When she finds out that he is a vampire she decides that she wants to spend forever with him. She wants him to change her into a vampire so that she can spend forever with him, but he is reluctant to change her into a vampire. Edwards’s dad Carlsile informs Bella what it’s like to be a vampire and guides her. Esme who is Edwards’s mom is a loving maternal figure in Bella’s life especially in the last book. The Cullen’s and Bella play baseball and while playing encounter three bad vamps (nomads) that smell Bellas' blood. The Cullen’s protect Bella and kill one of the three vamps. The bad vamp that they kill is the mate to one of the other of the two vamps, Victoria essentially vows revenge for her fallen mate. Later on Edward leaves Bella out of concern for her safety. She breaks down and finds comfort in a childhood friend named Jacob whom she finds out is a werewolf. As Bella falls somewhat in love with Jacob she learns that Edward believes her to be dead. Because Edward believes her to be dead he goes to Italy to have the Volturi (who are essentially royalty vamps) kill him. She goes to Italy to confront Edward and to tell him that she isn’t dead. While she is in Italy the Voultri find out that she knows about vampires yet hasn’t been killed or changed. They give the Cullen’s the choice of either changing or killing her. The Cullen’s opt to change her later. After the Cullen’s leave Italy and return to Forks, Edward tells Bella that he is still reluctant to change her however he is willing to change her if she will marry him. Jacob still loves Bella and tries to convince her that she can stay with him and not have to change. She says yes to Edward and they get married. After they get married they go on a honey moon and Bella gets pregnant. Bella’s baby isn’t fully human and it almost kills her. While having the baby she almost dies. To save Bella Edward injects her with his vampire venom and changes her into a vampire. The Volturi find out about the half vampire-half human. The Volturi are afraid of the half vamp-half human and they wage a war over its life. Edward and Bella live happily ever after.

In the Twilight (Meyer) saga there are many myths and archetypes. Victoria, the other nomads, and the Volturi are the “shadow figures” (Signs of Life, Seger, Linda p.362). They are the ones that either want Bella dead or want her changed to be a vampire for their own reasons. Carlsile, Edwards’s dad would be the “wise old man” (Signs p.362). He is a doctor and helps Bella. Esme who is Edwards’s mom would be the “good mother” (Signs p.362) because she loves and protects Bella. Bella and Edward are the heroes of the story. They are the main characters.

The author describes several myths, the hero myth, the combination myth, and the healing myth. The differences are the path that the hero takes, the reason the hero takes the path and the outcome. All myth story plot lines have an up and a down to the stories’ plot. The plot changes as the story goes on. Things happen to the heroes and their lives change. The Twilight saga was written by Stephenie Meyer. The words used to describe the archetypes are from Linda Seger’s “Creating the Myth”. (Signs of Life p.356-364) Linda’s examples were from Star Wars (Lucas, George) and my examples were from Twilight (Meyer, Stephenie).

Steven Johnson – It’s All about Us

The internet is growing at an amazing exponential rate. Nearly every piece of information known has been posted on some website. Now days, the web is directed and aimed at “us” or the general population. It is there to help us for whatever we need. Anyone can simply go onto Wikipedia and post anything they want and claim it fact. This could be a bad thing and this easily could be a great thing. In Steven Johnson’s It’s All about Us, he states “bloggers and Wikipedians are likely to do some things better than their professional equivalents and some things much worse” (447). Johnson is saying that these posts can either lead us down a new road that we never thought of or corrupt the present thoughts we have. It can go either way because there is no filter to what someone is allowed to say. For instance, there has been a huge boom in worthless drool on the internet that has no real meaning or use. A perfect example would be Facebook. Everyone posts random things about their day and what not. As Johnson points out “there is undeniably a vast increase in the sheer quantity of accessibility of pure crap” (447). He is saying that more and more pointless “crap” is making it onto the web thanks to everyone. An interesting way to think of it is that what might be pointless dribble to you might be extremely important to me. An ingenious use of blogging is the local conversations about your community. Local parents can easily go check out what is going on around them. Whether there has been a robbery on this street or a new library on that street. It is an easy way to connect the community on a virtual level without having to physically walk around and interview each person about what happened that day. This was never an option and I think we should take advantage of can so easily help our communities. Johnson mentions that “local knowledge has been limited historically to the personal contact of word-of-mouth. Now, on the Web, it has a megaphone” (448). He is aware of the possibilities that come with this technology. What we need to keep in mind is that we need to continue to expand our internet experience and not get into a cycle of the same websites. There is so much information to be seen and read. There are so many uses and possibilities that the internet will never stop growing.

It's all about me

The internet known today is known for many things. You can find anything you need with a touch of a button online. Whether it is that perfect mother’s day present for your mom or any type of information you are looking for, it is inevitable you will find it online. The thing about the information now and days is that you don’t know who posted it. Anyone can log on and post just about anything online. In “It’s All about Us” Steven Johnson states, “Web 2.0 is made up of ordinary people: hobbyists, diarist, armchair pundits, people adding their voice to the Web’s great evolving conversation for the sheer love of it “(446). In this you think about the celebrity bloggers like Perez Hilton, telling the public about the most intimate secrets of the celebrities today, or the people telling about their daily lives on Facebook or Myspace. People now have a say what is being put on the internet
He stated that in Web 1.0 it was organized around the pages and now it moved towards us, the people. Even information pages such as Wikipedia regular people can go in and right about historical events, people places, even though most schools or teachers don’t accept it as a source, it could be known for a reliable source. Like in the article It states “Bloggers and Wikipedians are likely to do some things better than their professionals” (447.) Even though this website is done by regular people that it could possibly be better than something an expert could write, it could give us a different perspective that the professional didn’t think of.
Johnson helped create something that monitored conversations that took place online about the neighborhoods around the country. This he monitored what people were saying in regards to their own personal communities. He looked at what was directly affecting the people. This service was called “outside.in”. From this people told what was actually going on in their own community, instead of media coverage, or lack thereof. The media only covers what people want to hear, like a puppy being saved from a burning building. It doesn’t really care about the issues of the people. From this I feel is helpful because it is helping the people actually get out their own opinions, and the real information is coming out. Not just the “sugar-coated” news coverage stories.
The internet could be a great source if used properly. One has to be careful where they find their information, or who they are hearing it from. Weither it is an actual professional or just in the grasps of the “placebloggers”, there needs to be some sort of filter (448). But it could also be helpful when encountering your own problems that you need to get out there and let everyone know.

Enough About You

Enough About You 5/3/10
Enough, enough already! Our culture has become obsessed with….ourselves. Which is no surprise really, since up until recently the majority of Americans received their news and information from traditional media sources such as Broadcast News, and print newspapers, all of which are falling by the wayside in this new digital media popularity explosion, and now approximately ¾ of us receive their news “via e-mail or updates on social media sites” (Doug Gross CNN).
That’s impressive, and a bit concerning. A full 61% of Americans get all of their news online, vs. 54% from news radio, and 50% newspaper. (Gross) Brian Williams, a ‘blogger journalist’, would like us to consider what is lost with the digital media overtaking the traditional, to think about what are we missing when everyone is a “potential expert” (Brian Williams Signs of Life). With this new ability, our intake of news and ideas tends to be tailor made for us…because we’re the Most Important Person in our lives. (and maybe even the world!) Williams also speaks to the idea that in focusing mainly on ourselves, we lose out on many “alternate perspectives” seriously curtailing our ability to make informed decisions, or even be aware of all that is going on in the BIG, real world.
The web takes over. It is so easy, so busy, so active and quick…. Ahhh, true bliss. According to Michael Agger (Lazy Eyes) we love “bulleted list(s)” the “use of bold”, “short sentence fragments” and anything else that allows us to be spoon fed only what we want at that moment. Williams brings up the idea that online media consumption is attractive because it allows you to find ANYTHING, and “All of it exists to fill a perceived need”.
What do we need? We need to be important. We need to be winners. We need to feel as if we’re the center of the universe. Maybe a little dose of (gasp) Communist theory would balance out the American idea of “me me me”?
In our glorified celebration of ourselves, we lose the very importance that we crave. When everyone wins, and everyone is ‘special’, it’s not really that special anymore. This need to share all aspects of our lives with perfect strangers would seem bizarre to most cultures. So why do I think that I need to post “just bought the cutest shoes today!!!” on Facebook? WHO CARES? Well, everyone must! And luckily, Jorge in Panama can now keep up with my shoe purchases via the social sites…thank goodness!
Such things that were once considered intimate and private are broadcast to the entire world. “John and Kate plus 8” wow! They truly believe that their lives are so important that we should all share in each and every moment, but I think I’ll pass….Real Housewives of Dallas is on.
We are honestly losing out on so many experiences by limiting ourselves to that which strikes an interest in us, and appeases our senses. Immersed in online sites with “internet programs ready to filter out all but the news you want to hear” while we listen to our Pandora radio, as to not hear any unwanted songs (Williams).
There is so much more that we should allow ourselves to be aware of! We are doing a great disservice to ourselves, and each other if we remain focused solely on what is comfortable and familiar, instead of reaching out, and becoming more aware of the amazing amount of information and ideas that exist elsewhere! “The danger just might be that we miss the next great book, or the next great idea, or that we fail to meet the next great challenge” (Williams), and that is a sad and depressing idea to ponder.
623 words J Parker

It's All About Us" by Steven Johnson

For most of us, the internet has become a part of our everyday life. If we have any questions or want to connect with friends, we go online. Because of the quick and easy access of the internet, it has now become our most important information tool. Everyone now has a voice that the whole world gets to hear. But how can we drown out the voices of the people that we do not want to hear when we go online?
In the article “It’s All About Us” written by Steven Johnson he talks about how much information has changed from web 1.0 to web 2.0. There has been a big jump from the information that one could once get from the internet (web 1.0) to what we get from the internet today. Everyday people putting their personal opinions out on the web have now over taken the internet that was once seen as a tool where a person could get reliable credible information. There has been a big shift from clearly knowing when you are speaking to a professional to now everyone who has a computer can put in his or her ore. It seems that the amateurs are over taking the professionals. Johnson states “There is undeniably a vast increase in the sheer quantity of accessibility of pure crap” (447). What Johnson is saying is that because there is so much information out there that it is hard for the reader to determine what is crap or fact. When I go online to check up on a symptom that I may be having, I rely on the information to be accurate, but most of the time when I confront my doctor about what I had read about a certain concern, it is not correct. My doctor always warns me about getting medical information online, as it is not safe and rarely accurate. The Web 2.0 has been a window for every ordinary person out there in the world to have a voice. Everyone now is considered an expert because they can relate to an issue on a personal level. However, do they really deserve that title when so many of us just write about our everyday life’s that do not necessarily concern everyone in the world?
Johnson helped launch a service called “outside. in” that monitors the conversations that take place online about the neighborhoods around the country. What he monitored was that people were talking about what had been happening in their community. They spoke about the things that directly affected them and what they were passionate about. Because the information is filtered into topic areas, online users now have a specific place to go to find out and keep up to date with what is going on in their community. This seems like an excellent idea for the professionals that want a clear line drawn between what they put out on the web to those who just put their opinions and have not gone to school to study a given subject. Johnson states, “The fact is that most user-created content on the web is not challenging the authority of the traditional expert” (447). In saying this, he argues that people are not challenging the words of the traditional expert and that when we get online, professional or not that we all consider ourselves experts. The internet is taking away from those who have studied and disciplined their selves in news and education and continues to blur the line of what is professional or not. Outside.in would be a good idea for the professionals and the public, the information we receive online is filtered so that users can get some kind of dialog. You could find out about a subject easier and could tell the professional opinions over the general public thoughts and experiences because of the categories. The people that want to find out about what is going on with their community have a direct way of finding that out and the professionals have a place where their work can be appreciated.

There will always be the need for professional advice in everyone’s life, so it is important that when you seek out information online be very careful as you do not know if the source is credible. As we continue to move on in this fast pace electronic world filtering information will become more and more important. Therefore, it seems as Johnson’s outside.in service has arrived just in time

"It's All about Us"

In Steven Johnsons short essay "It's All about Us" he talks about how the internet has exploded into something that lets every person who wants to have a voice. " Web 2.0 s made up of ordinary people: hobbyists, diarists, armchair pundits, people adding their voice to the Web's great evolving conversation for the sheer love of it"(Par 1). Americans live in a world today that is over ran by the internet and we live in a country where we can find almost anything we want by just typing in a few key words of we can type things with almost no consequences at the same time. Johnson describes these people as amateurs which there very much are and brings in the statement "For some, it has power-to-the-people authenticity. For others, it signals the end of quality and professionalism"(Par 2). For some of us we may know a lot about a certain topic, we can take me for example, I played baseball for a number of years and was a pitcher. I attended camps and was trained by players that had a vast majority of knowledge in all the things that you have to do to become an outstanding player. Now if I wanted to go and make a blog on the basics of pitching and being an amateur I could very easily teach people things but in no way know 100% of what you need to know to become an effective pitcher. Some may see this as something that really helps or some guy could come in and just say that all these techniques were false and say that it was no were near quality. One major concern there is with all this writing such as blogging and Wikipedia, being that some people just plainly don't know and are just blowing smoke to make themselves believe they are a professional at a certain subject. But then as you think Johnson is going to take this side that this is such a bad thing he claims "The fact is that most user-created content on the Web is not challenging the authority of a traditional expert. It's working in a zone where there are no experts or where the users themselves are the experts"(Par 5). Then Johnson brings into conversation the biggest places of dairy-style pages are webpage’s such as LiveJournal and Myspace, and then goes in by stating that they are not challenging anyone they are just writing about what is happening in their lives and says that most of the photographers on Flickr have no true dream of becoming the next Annie Leibovitz. It is just their way of showing pictures to their family and friends. I post pictures on my facebook because they look awesome and I want people to know what I have been up to, not to make money off of and be famous off of. Johnson helped launch a new service by the name of Outside. In. The service is compiled of a bunch of these ordinary people blogging about what happens in these real communities where people like you and I live in, talking about such things as the playground that is going to open up or about the No Child Left Behind service and the affects it has had on the public schools. These people are the real professionals and there is a reason why you don't see reporters in these places talking about what is happening because it is something that they just have not a lot of knowledge in. If these reporters can ignore this then why can't we ignore things that we have virtually no idea in? If we can cut all the just absurd things from the internet such as statements saying the earth is flat then maybe the everyday bloggers who actually do know something about certain subjects will not always be under the magnified glass about what they are writing about.

Change of Focus, A View on “It’s All About Us”

Steven Johnson presents a side of the internet explosion that concerns anyone who isn’t published but wishes to utilize the voice of opinion. In its beginning, the web designers focus was centered on his/her purpose of the site. The focus has move to us, the public. It also goes beyond giving us a product or service. It wishes to know what we think and how we feel. The public has responded to this en mass. Anyone with an observation of a topic will take the time to express themselves with blogs, tweets, or news feed updates. This offers an opportunity John Q Everyman has never had in human history, the ability to be heard without being published.

This is disconcerting to those who do focus on being published. There is a protest being presented from the academy and media centers. It states that outlets like the blog and Wikipedia will take away from those who work hard to uphold the integrity of news and education. It will make it difficult to distinguish a true source from an opinion. With the increase in volume, the separation of information wheat from opinion chaff will blur the line of truth.

Johnson sees the points on either side. He has taken the initiative to provide comfort to either side. The trafficking of opinions will happen if we want it to or not. That being realized, Johnson has developed a program to organize the floating information in a way that you can find things pertinent to you and your world. Outside.in takes the conversations about a topic and brings them together for those who would benefit from the dialog. Johnson has essentially helped create the world’s largest office water cooler. Knowing its there, the people can take a break from the cubical life and see what else is going on in the office. You receive something CNN cannot provide, the pertinent events that fly under headline radar.

This should be a comfort to the experts. It concerns the events important to the public but takes nothing away from their specific fields. The topics of quantum physics and how your local high school JV girl’s basket ball team will do this week rarely coincide. According to Johnson, each subject has its expert and can comment appropriately. Each one has its place, and we shouldn’t worry about the size of the river of voices. Johnson is proposing the use of a raft to navigate the white water of the internet.

Johnson’s observations are accurate and his solution is excellent. Time has always promoted the access of information. It started with the invention of the printing press and now offers instantaneous interaction. It is easy to see how the information elite would be threatened by this turn of events. History has shown us their reactions. When someone holds the key to knowledge, opening the back door lessens the necessity of their presence. I agree with Johnson that this isn’t the entire truth. The journalist and researcher are essential to production and distribution of topics beyond the layman. Your neighbor might not be able to give you in-depth knowledge of the gulag, but a diligent researcher can. On the same token, that same researcher would have less credibility in presenting a case for the latest mini van like a soccer mom could.

Considering the evolution of information, I think Johnson’s proposal is just in time. Filtering the flow of conversation would save time and provide a more stable platform for dialog. You could find someone who was honest about their subject easier. Also if you wished to communicate your own observations, you could have confidence that the right ears would receive it. This takes nothing away from expert observations and literature. If an expert opinion was necessary, the populace knows where to find them.

What We are To Advertisers/Twitchell

What We Are To Advertisers

This article, though short, offered a world on insight into the minds of marketing executives and advertisers. It is a concise documentation of how we are looked at and categorized during this creative process. Advertisement is a way to spread the word to the masses about particular products. If you take a look around your local grocery store, you will see many wares that you are familiar with, along with the brand names that we have come to know (think Kleenex for facial tissue and Crest for toothpaste) Advertising, as I learned in this article, goes much deeper than just selling a product to the masses. Twitchell focuses on the subgroups that advertisers use to create and place their ads. Each and every one of us fits into what is called the “VALS” system, which categorizes consumers by buying habits. There are three main groups, along with eight sub-groups, all of which can be made into several combinations of buyer. This article I found to be mainly objective, in which there is more basic, logistical information given than total critique of the advertising/marketing industry. There was use of vocabulary (which was defined) along with charts to explain the different types of consumer. The main themes of the article were, “Mass production equals mass marketing equals creation of mass stereotypes” as well as “different products have different meanings to different audiences.” (pg.193) For example: Certain products, I just do not have any care about. Men’s Electric Shaving enhancer is an excellent example. For a certain audience, this ad is meaningful and the product might actually be of use. The specific ad I am thinking of features a middle aged man using this product and towards the end he is having his face stroked by an attractive woman with crimson fingernails. As a woman, I might buy this for my significant other, but for the single female there is simply no need to give two seconds thought or care. Thus, this ad would more likely be shown on a basic network channel or a more male-viewer dominated channel. (pg.193) going back to the ‘VALS’ system, this acronym stands for: Values and Lifestyles System (pg. 194). To advertisers, “Segmentation studies are crucial” (pg. 193) because they help streamline what varying groups see and hear about a product. In group number one, the Principle-Oriented Group, there are three categories. Actualizers, Fulfillers and Believers. Actualizers are generally out of the realm of marketing, for they have enough money that they can buy whatever they want, regardless of price. Fulfillers “support the status quo” and make purchases that are financially sound. Believers are generally conservative individuals with a strong sense of American pride (thus causing them to be drawn to American-made products). In the Status-Driven group, there are two types. Achievers and Strivers. Achievers are the “ideal consumer” for advertisers because they “buy to demonstrate success.” The final category is Participate-Driven consumers, and they include: Experiencers (those who live life on the edge and enjoy high-risk activities such as skiing, mountain climbing, fast cars, and the like), Makers and Strugglers. Twitchell noted that Actualizers and Strugglers were outside the glare of the glossy commercials and print ads, for one can already get anything they want and another simply does not have the means to buy such things. As I read this article, it made me think of the previous one I had read in Signs of Life in the U.S.A. The Parable of the Democracy of Goods. Advertisers have long focused on a few key groups, making average goods extraordinary (and those who purchase them like their wealthier peers.) This article also made me reflect on the commercials that I myself watched, and those which seem to be primarily for children, “macho men” (like those on Spike TV or ESPN) or women (Lifetime, Oxygen, E!) With each new channel, or magazine it is fairly obvious that there is a certain type of client to which the commercials or paper ad’s are intended for. I knew this was no accident, but I had no idea that there was literally a scale and model that was created specifically for this. I found this article to be enjoyable and informative, and as I sit down to watch the newest episode of Lost tonight, I will surely pay attention to which commercials I am being shown, and consider whom it was intended for and why that might be.

Kellogg’s All-Bran

Kellogg’s All-Bran J. Parker
Welcome to the world of (not so) subliminal messaging in advertising techniques. Today we’ll be focusing on ‘bran positioning’ in the media, and yes, the pun is intentional (if in poor taste), and not simply poor spelling skills. While most of marketing gurus today tend to use stimuli that impress upon our subconscious, Kellogg’s All-Bran has gone in the opposite direction with this television spot from 2007; in what I am hoping is an attempt to inject humor into this rather ‘uncomfortable’ topic!

http://www.mrbreakfast.com/cereal_theater.asp?videoid=2&id=6

Ah….constipation and irregularity! I’m unsure how this relates directly to the solid American worker (namely Joe Construction Worker) featured in this commercial, but then, I’m usually unsure why most advertisers do, well, what they do. I would encourage all viewers to begin taking a proactive look at what’s being ‘fed’ to us via the media.

The format of this ad is fairly basic…..it looks a bit ‘old school’ like a commercial layout from the 1990’s. The background is in muted brown tones (hmmmm), while the main character is wearing bright orange and a hardhat to get your attention.

In this spot, the character is running the monologue, but the background is the main focus. While he is telling us all how “sluggish” he felt, and he knew “something had to give”, steel I beam comes shooting out a hole behind him, complete with grunting noises from the other workers who are pulling it through the hole. Just wait…..we’re only warming up!

The target audience would appear to be male and middle aged. Also targeted, may be their wives. There they are, sitting at home in the evening, watching a little TV, and thinking “Wow! John is really irregular too….I bet All-Bran could ‘invigorate’ him! Let’s buy it!”

Emotionally this advert seems to be a fairly lighthearted one, about a serious topic. The humor is not brought right out into the foreground, so it is a secondary and subliminal ploy. Who knew that being irregular would ‘affect your work’ like that?

The composition itself involves what seems to be a very unsafe worksite….sparks flying, beams dropping, and ‘irregular’ workers, Oh My! He then speaks of being ‘invigorated’ by All-Bran while large steel barrels give the impression that they are falling out of his….ummm, behind.
The layout tends to have many things happening ‘behind’ poor Joe. The ending scene involves a large DUMP truck dropping its big, bulky load directly under Joe’s (tired and sore?) rump. Still feeling invigorated Joe?

The “10 days to a better you” of the All-Bran challenge are never actually discussed. What exactly is it? How does it ‘give you more energy’? How’s it work? Yet, they are still urging us to buy, eat and feel great!

I’m unsure if the most effective way to end an ad about a food that will effectively deal with your constipation issues, should be with “do it, feel it”, that’s not a visual that I want to be left with.
(497 words)

Review of Bridgstone Tire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNUWOu5BB

A silver car winds down the road, two cars on his tail. They pass an abandoned truck on the side of the road, its rusted shell seems to say, "There is no hope turn back." Then massive lights on the road ahead, the way has been blocked. The driver of the silver car quickly puts on the breaks. We are given a clean shot of the side of the car, and watch as the tires stop roaling as the silver car comes to a quick and controled stop. Four individuals walk forward, the leader takes a microphone and tells the driver of the silver car, "Here's the deal you Bridgestone tires or your life." The passenger side door opens and a woman is pushed out. She looks around as the silver car backs up and zooms away. "I said life not wife." the leader of the gang wines. As if hearing his complaint the silver car hanks farewell. Their prey lost the gang turns away saddened by the loss of good tires.

The breakdown. It's important to realize who this add is aimed at, mostly men. The two most odvious clues to this are the product and the time the add was first aired. The produck is a car part and cars are traditionaly the domian on men. The add was origionaly aired during the
SuperBowl in 2010. I would like to note that by throwing in a little laughter Bridgestone doesen't completly offend the women in the audience. Also the attitudes of the gang are nuteral toward the now helpless woman, so we dont see her as in any real danger.
The format and image of the add is overall dark and adverturous, the cars wind their chase through dark faraway reads, its night out and the rain is comming down. The first image of the silver car being chased is from the rear. We get a quick glimps of a car that has been altered in a Mad Max way. It tells us that we are in a dark post apocalyptic world. The rusted shell of a truck on the side of the road adds to this atmosphere. Then there is the road gang, they are the comic relif. Wearing tires around their waist oversized glasses. Two of the main gangmembers are so different is size its commical, one's the very big guy the other is the little neardy guy. Then there is the leader, he's English.
The emotional rise starts of as tnese but exciting as we follow the car chase, then when we arive and the roadblock and the English leader gives the punch line, we all get a little laugh. The "hero" drives off is his nice silver car and the gang are left with nothing but his old lady.
The audiences response, laughter. Tires are not something you buy everyday, but now that they have made you laugh, maby you or your old lady will rember them when it comes time to get a new set.

It is funny, isn't it

lucas W.
video post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew8hmVIGKcM

The start to the music video “Funny the Way It Is” by the Dave Matthews Band has us watch Dave begin to sing while wearing a goofy hat and glasses, sitting down at a breakfast table almost as if he were selling something. He then moves to the next scene with no help from the camera other than a simple pan left as he walks away and puts on a jacket, hat, and sunglasses, giving us an almost Sinatra star feel. Dave continues with tape on his face and magnifying glasses over his mouth and eyes, and then gets a brown liquid poured on him as he puts on an orange jump suit and a head bag. He comes out in a nice jacket with big sunglasses and starts dancing with the microphone during the guitar solo as if he were some pop star, walking over to some studio chairs he looks as if he is in an interview (the fake reality show camera man surrounding him helps with this), and finally he walks off and tears down the screen where a projector is playing old concerts of his band. (whew)
Similar to Eminem’s “We Made You”, the Dave Matthews Band made a video pointing out the ironies of life and doing so by showing the life of an American star in the process. He goes from selling a product to the high life of modeling (or partying) to plastic surgery to the inevitable asylum most stars must take from pressure (and more often than not drug or alcohol abuse) to being the big pop star to the reality star in an interview to walking away from it all. The intended audience would seem to be a mix, on one level his lyrics talk more to his fans or just to those who would listen (best exemplified with the lyric “somebody’s heart is broken and it becomes your favorite song”), but the video itself seems to send a message to the listeners as the comedy that comes in these ironies in life and also to maybe Hollywood, pointing out the ironies and crazy life that it can make for someone. He sells it best with the overall sense of sarcasm that he presents in the video singing with over an exaggerated face and silly outfits. The video also uses some bad camera angles and sometimes what appears to be a change in the speed, never making the video the most comfortable to take for face value and only driving home (in an oddly ironic way) how comfortable we can get with everything he presenting and singing about.

Video Text/ Pearl The Landlord

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/74/the-landlord-from-will-ferrell-and-adam-ghost-panther-mckay

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4152/the-landlord-out-takes-from-will-ferrell-and-adam-ghost-panther-mckay?rel=prog_related&rel_pos=2

Pop culture being one of our biggest forms of entertainment, I thought it would be appropriate to play a short with one of today’s largest comedy figures. Will Farrel hits me 50/50 with his comedy. If he plays too much of an idiot I cannot stand him, but I will admit that he does have his moments. The role in this clip is perfect because it’s hardly about him, but the cute little girl playing the part of Pearl, his landlady.
The shock factor when watching this clip is quite high. One cannot help but wonder at the ability of a little girl that cannot be more than two reciting lines that are quite strong for one of this tender age. The scene plays out as titled, at will Farrel’s apartment. There’s a knock at the door, and mysteriously Will knows that it’s his landlady… strange. But he sets the scene up for immediate hostility. He’s nervous about what his landlady will want, the rent money. He opens the door and behold there is a two year old girl demanding rent money.
This little girl is so cute that one cannot help but be shocked by the fact that she is yelling about rent money. “You pay now, bitch,” I have seen the extra clip and I know that her parents were right there coaching her these lines. Her father was the friend in the beginning of the clip with Will. One wonders if this is appropriate teaching your little girl these lines. Perhaps our generation has degraded so far that we have to resort to two year olds being vulgar to humor us. Whatever the case I really rather enjoy the shock factor that this piece has.
The scene continues on with the demanding of rent. Pearl threatens Will with eviction if he does not pay up, she might even go as far as smacking him. Will pleads for more time; try’s to make a bargain. Pearl continues to insult him, and will tells her she needs to relax. We do often say such things in confrontations, and the silly thing is they only seem to elevate the situations we’re in. One thing I found hilarious was that this girl calls him an “asshole,” and “bitch,” demonstrating what most parents would frown upon as a potty mouth. But is it really so much better that we use the language ourselves? Adults seldom demonstrate appropriate behavior for their children, so it’s no wonder they develop habits of older generations at younger ages. This is “maturing,” before truly maturing.
In true fashion to adult confrontation, we find that Pearl has a drinking problem. “I need to get my drink on.” This demonstrates Pearl’s true desire for the rent money. Will quickly lets her know that this is a problem, and that the situation needs to be resolved at a later date. This video strikes me because it demonstrates common adult behavior in a not unusual manner and setting. But one of the adult positions is replaced with a precious two year old girl, making what might strike one as a usual situation, very different.

Roland Merchand- The Parable of the Democracy of Goods

I liked this essay because i felt i could relate. It made me think and analyze the ads that i see all the time and ussually don't bat an eye at. The Parable of the Democracy of Goods is reffering to the idea that all products can be used by anyone. The greatness of modern mass production allowed everyone to enjoy the "society's most significant pleasure, convenience, or benefit". He mostly reffers to ads between 1920 and 1940. The main pattern that i notice was that all the ads depicted or explained a wealthy family using a product and then a note saying that all families can enjoy the same product. For example, one ad he explained was about a wealthy family was feeding their child Cream of Wheat and then explaining how not even the filthy rich could buy a better breakfast for their child. This idea would make people think that "well if THEY are feeding their child that and their rich i should too". This idea only works because we view the rich as living in luxury and would like to live like them, and if they are using a product we should be too.

Merchand also explains the opposite idea of the Democracy of Afflictions. This idea expressed that it does not matter who you are because we are all the same. This was attemping to relate to everyone by no setting a target market. An example Merchand uses is a soap company saying that no one is safe from B.O. no matter who you are. Another way of explaining the Democracy of Afflictions is that its a mode to remind mindless readers that no one was safe from a specific threat or danger that a certain product they were advertising could prevent. So first they remind you that you are not safe no matter who you are and then offer up their product to protect oneself.

Another way the Democracy of Goods was present in society was comparing to the past. Historical comparisons were made to make ones present situation seem better. "No monarch in all history ever saw the day he could have half as much as you." was presented by Paramount Pictures and is a great example of the Democracy of Goods. The prices of many products were lowered from mass production allowing people to buy product formally only availiable to the rich. This makes people feel important and part of the elite in our society. So really what it comes down to is that the feeling we get out of buying a product and the statment made about ones status by buying that product.

James B. Twitchell/ "What We Are to Advertisers"

We all consume, some of us more than others. American culture can easily be seen as the epitome of consumerism, and Mr. Twitchell demonstrates how we are viewed by those who wish to sell us. I was slightly surprised Twitchell didn’t go all out and compare consumerism to all of the Wild Kingdom. “Birds of a feather flock together,” Twitchell uses this common mannerism as if birds can easily be baited into developing a habit, continually coming back to a source for more. This vision he plants with animal characteristics, was a wonder to me that he did not come out and call advertisers vultures or some other raptor. They circle their prey, using groups like the “SRI” to collect data and f ind out more about their victims. When they are ready they swoop.

I enjoyed Twichell’s breakdown of consumers, from “Actualizers who essential know the difference between need and want. And Strugglers who have next to nothing, and have a long ways to go, if they manage to get out of the cycle of poverty. Whilst breaking each group down Twitchell pays homage to most everyone’s status symbol, the car. When one looks at another’s car, one typically automatically sizes them up based on today’s status symbol. From the dents on the outside, the cleanliness inside, the sound system, the rims, and most of all the make and model of the vehicle. Whether it’s a fully restored 1963 fire engine red Stingray Corvette, a BMW, a Mercedes, souped up Honda Civic, or a plain clunker, though shall be judged. As I was stating, it’s a status symbol that people base what kind of person you are, what kind of money you have, and how you fit into today’s society. Because it is such a huge status symbol, its no wonder that vehicles are one of the most prevalent, and largest marketing enterprises globally. In Bellingham we have almost an entire road dedicated to the sale of cars.

As I scramble to organize my thoughts after another exhausting week, one realizes that consumerism is in large part about what we have. Its either who has the biggest, strongest, fastest, or sleekest, trimmest and sexiest. That’s a whole lot of est. “Strugglers” struck me as wannabe’s that just want to make it into that group that have all those things. They want the look at least while they work their way up “even leasing a BMW” as Twitchell puts it. This would be a key group for advertisers who obviously want to focus on the materialistic group that always wants more than they have. In contrast “Actualizers” appear to be the level headed individuals who know the difference between a want and a need. They have no desire to run out and buy the best, because they are comfortable where they are. When they do go get the best it will be on their time.

Dave Ramsey is one of my financial influences. He is a Christian Author, Talk Show Host, and TV Personnel. His gig is finance, and having been a millionaire twice in his life, he has a good idea of both extremities of “Struggler” and “Actualizer.” But to paraphrase what he is all about, knowing the difference between a need and a want is key. “Live now like no one else so that later you can live like no one else.” His push is for retirement. If one saves and is intelligent with their money they can retire someday with a healthy sum and live the life of an “Actualizer.”

iPhone ad-There's an app for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hny-G-0nUBM&feature=youtube_gdata



Everything is at the tips of your fingers, in one small hand held electronic device. It allows you to go online, download apps, look up the weather, and get directions; anything you could possibly “need” lays within the palm of your hand. In this advertisement, they show little detail but send a big message. It simply shows the iPhone, displaying different features following with the saying, “there’s an app for that.” The advertisement is saying that anything you could possibly need or want is right in front of you, you don’t have to go on a computer or print out anything; it’s all in one device. It’s a hit with many people, because it’s a direct and easy way for communication, information, and even education. Americans tend to be known for their laziness and need for instant gratification, and what better way to sell that than through the latest technology at a costly price? People will spend hundreds of dollars for instant access and to have the latest fad, because desktops and flip phones were “so last year”. Apple targets any age, race, gender, or background, and if they don’t, I’m sure they’ll “make an app” for it. The commercial ends by saying, “the iPhone: solving life’s dilemmas, one app at a time.” As ridiculous as it sounds, millions of us buy into it because they believe that the iPhone really will solve all of our problems and make our lives that much simpler…if only it was that easy right? The intended audience is really anyone who will buy it or can afford it. In the advertisement, the background is all white, and the iPhone takes up the majority of the screen, emphasizing directly on its “beauty” it has to us, as consumers. The advertisement definitely calls for a response, suggesting you to buy the product. It claims that it will be a good investment, though it doesn’t mention the high prices or the potential glitches, just the significance and relevance it has to our lives. If we were to take a poll of iPhone owners, vs. “other phone” owners, would they really be that much more happy with their lives than the ‘rest of us’? Truth be told, we will buy whatever catches our eye and keeps us updated with the latest social tendencies. This leads me to wonder, do we buy these types of products to benefit our lives or to satisfy everyone else’s outlook on our own?

Budlight Commercial- The Elevator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rsEnwKrsvc

The advertisement for Doritos starts off with a guy picking up a girl for a date. She welcomes him into her home and introduces him to her son while she steps out of the room for a minute. The guy talks to the son and picks up a Dorito. The son slaps him across the face and says, “Keep your hands off my Mama, and keep your hands off my Doritos!” This funny commercial is mostly for entertainment and laughter, but does this advertisement have a deeper meaning than jut for laughs? Is it trying to get you to the feeling of protection and hoarding? I believe the commercial is saying that Doritos are so good that you don’t want to share them, and are in top priority for things that you want to protect, like your “mama”, because they are so delicious. It is also saying that you want to hoard all the good stuff for yourself, as a selfish act.

The advertisement is not screaming at you how good their product is. And it isn’t directly telling you to buy it. It is subtly hidden with the aspect that the kid doesn’t want to share them because it is that good. Which is a different marketing technique. Most commercials these days will tell you how good their product is and compare it to other similar products making theirs seem superior over the competitor product. They also don’t tell you much about it. It just says don’t touch my Doritos. This is sort of a hidden message in a sense because it is not directly telling you how good the product is, you just assume that it is good making you want to buy the product.

The commercial is laid out differently everything is in color but it zooms on certain parts that I don’t think was necessary. For example when the mom was walking away it zoomed in on her rear end. I did not see how it was relevant to the product, but probably more for the men audience watching. It also zoomed in on the bowl of Doritos. This made more sense because the commercial was selling the Doritos. I think this commercial was mostly for men because the fact that it was played as a commercial during the super bowl, not saying that women don’t watch the super bowl but it is assumed that more men watch it than women.