Underlying Messages

We lightly touched on advertisements and their formula of signifiers + signified =sign during class this week. For example, with Juicy Ads or Haute Couture ads, as Jon so insightfully (shout out to Jon Pace!), pointed out for us, when the viewer buys into that ad and desires the outfit presented, he/she is not just buying into the outward style, but also to the implied and signified lifestyle that the dress wearer exudes. Both the dress and its meaning form the sign.

Similarly, an ad I stumbled upon wasn’t as material as such an example; still, the signifier, signified, and sign are all equally present, though on a more political level. The ad’s signifiers are the dirty water bottles and their lethal “flavors” and the signified is the idea of clean, taken-for-granted water (seemingly ubiquitous by us privileged Americans), not actually being as accessible for millions around the world. This ad is a spoof on a typical water bottle ad with its vending machine, and acts as a sort of commentary on the current water crises throughout the world. This ad exemplifies how ads can manipulate standard images or concepts.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_9F9_RUESS2E/SoVSi7PjRqI/AAAAAAAAAk8/SH7UadnwniA/s800/33-Cool-and-Creative-Ambient-Ads-Unicef-Dirty-Water.jpg

Advertising Agency, Casanova Pendrill explains, “We bottled dirty water in 8 lethal varieties, made a vending machine for it, and launched it in Manhattan for 1$. Thirsty? So are millions of people around the world with no access to clean drinking water. 4,200 children die of water-related diseases everyday. Help provide safe drinking water to developing countries. Donate today. tapproject.org”

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_9F9_RUESS2E/SofuqOs15jI/AAAAAAAAAnE/HupIhOcIzXU/s800/33-Cool-and-Creative-Ambient-Monster-Foosball.jpg

Advertisements, such as this one, can also comment on gender norms/roles in society. I find this ad a bit disturbing since it seems sexist that a ballerina (a female) can’t kick the soccer ball since she isn’t suited properly to play with the other generically uniformed, male players. Maybe this is just my inner feminist reading too much into this.

Oh, and for giggles…or shocked gasps (Creepiest Ads): http://www.2spare.com/item_92595.aspx
Very disturbing.

In this age of digital media, everything is editable. Barthes' idea of the Noeme, how photographs are an indubitable record of real events, has been virtually destroyed in our world of photoshop. Anyone with a computer and the knowledge to use it can alter images in seconds, putting their head on someone else's body or inserting themselves in a photo when they weren't actually there.

Here are several images in which some kind of digital retouching or altering was done, with the response from the public being negative. The image of Kelly Clarkson on the cover of Self Magazine created controversy because it altered her body to make her look better, yet in the top right hand corner it reads "Stay True To You, And Everyone Else Will Love You Too!" with the message to the public being that you can only look good if you can attain this impossible figure.

The image of the Ralph Lauren model also created some controversy. In the image, the model is so digitally altered that her head is wider than her pelvis. This type of figure is physically impossible. The message here seems to be that the only way you can be beautiful is if you're so thin that you have no body fat (and you are presumably dead as a result). This image is almost humorous in its ridiculousness.

The third image is of the former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin wearing an American flag bathing suit and brandishing a rifle while having an excited expression on her face. This image is obviously doctored, with Palin's head on someone else's body. It nevertheless created controversy because of the nature of its intent. Palin was (and still is) an important and controversial political figure in American politics, and the creator of this image obviously wished to discredit her. While anyone who views this image should be able to guess that it is doctored or at the very least be skeptical of whether it is real or not, its intent is clear.

These days, no one is safe. A simple google search will reveal thousands upon thousands of images that have been altered in some way with potentially devastating consequences for those involved. While digital cameras and photoshop have democratized the process of photography like never before, this also means that spotting a real from a fake has become extremely difficult for all but the most seasoned experts. It is unclear where photography will go from here, but it what is clear is that the days of the photograph being used as unquestionable evidence of an event happening are over.

Tyra Banks Disproves the Myth of Photographic Truth

When recently watching a rerun of America’s Next Top Model, I witnessed Tyra Banks, unknowingly, disprove the “myth of photographic truth”. In Practices of Looking, Sturken and Cartwright define this myth of photographic truth as the idea that, “a photograph is perceived to be an unmediated copy of the real world, a trace of reality skimmed off the very surface of life.”

Although for years, I myself, along with a good majority of the nation, I’m sure, have heavily speculated that models in fashion ads are “photoshopped”, virtually nipped and tucked to depict the perfect women that could never exist in nature. However, I had no proof. I had never seen a graphic artist late at night at his computer altering images of already stunningly beautiful women. Furthermore, no one in the industry would admit that this practice is taking place. Of course not, we are to believe that these women actually posses these qualities of flawlessness, and that we too can posses them without the aid of digital technologies.

However, Top Model provided me, and many Americans with the proof we have been searching for. As one of the beautiful models stood before the judges, Tyra chastised her for neglecting to take proper care of her body. She stated that the condition of the model’s body would not be tolerated by agencies, and she would not be booked for jobs if she did not work out and tone her “problem areas.” Tyra followed up her last statement by stating to the model that only after she was successful and gained the notoriety that she herself posses in the industry would she acquire the privilege of being airbrushed. At last the fashion industry has come clean. In this digital age where technologies allow for any photograph to be doctored, Tyra Banks has proved that we can no longer expect our photographs to be “unmediated copies of the real world.”

Due to this abundant new technology airbrushing photographs of models and celebrities is now the norm. Below is a link to a picture of Faith Hill on the cover of Redbook Magazine. On the right is original photo and on the left is the magazine cover has obviously been edited to allow Hill to appear more youthful.

http://www.switched.com/2007/08/30/worst-airbrushed-celebs-of-2007-so-far/4

From now on when we look at a magazine or a print advertisement we must remember that what we are seeing is not reality. We are viewing an altered reality that has been created by digital technology.

Skinny Models, Conflicting Ideologies

One of the interesting materials we have discussed in class is the relationship between ideologies and images.

According to the text, "the image culture in which we live is an arena of diverse and often conflicting ideologies." Like Barthe's concept of myth, "media representations naturalize ideologies."

For instance, through many media such as fashion magazines, fashion shows, and advertisements, skinny fashion models have set the physical ideal of women.

Skinny fashion models nowadays negatively influence girls and young women around the world.

Regional official Concha Guerra said, "Fashion is a mirro and many teenagers imitate what they see on the catwalk.:

The tall, and skinny, and misrepresentative features of models became an fashion icon that as Barthes's concept of myth indicates, those features would heavily affect the girls and women, putting them into serious social problems.

The world's first ban on skinny models at top-level fashion show was in Madrid.

Madrid's fashion week has turned away underweight models after protests that girls and young women were trying to copy their looks and developing eating disorders.

Airbrushing Gone Awry: Discussion of Photographic Truth and Ideology

This week, one of the topics of discussion was photographic truth and the question of its existence in a world littered with images that have been Photoshopped to death. These images, primarily of celebrities, raise concerns about both the idea of capturing truth (a concept that was once considered the hallmark of photography during its early years) as well as concerns regarding the idea of beauty in our society.

In a recent online piece done by Newsweek, the past decade's "most egregious retouching scandals" were put on display. Each scandal shows the grossly edited image in question alongside the original, untouched photo. Red markings pointing out the already heinous differences between the two emphasize the fact that what's being shown through these images are no longer truths by any means.








These images and their comparisons to the actual photographs should be alarming, especially for those who are not aware of the extent to which celebrities are altered to look the way they do in advertisements and magazines. But for the rest of us who are well aware of this standard practice in the media industry, they should still be just as alarming. They perpetuate this idea that altered photographs are an improvement or somehow better than the originals from which they came. Our consumption of these images represents a kind of confirmation or acceptance of this idea.

We also discussed the concept of ideology and how reproduction of photographs also reproduces ideologies of the ruling class. Instead of reproduction in terms of copying, reproduction in this case can mean the reproduction of a particular idea of beauty (especially for women): slender and light-skinned. In all of these images, this idea of what beauty is supposed to be is effectively reproduced and made for consumption.

Source: Newsweek

Going GaGa over Madonna

This week we delved into the topic of image reproduction. But what happens if what is being replicated isn’t just a photograph but living, breathing human being? And what if, unlike the Mona Lisa imitations on mugs and t-shirts, these replications reach the same height, perhaps greater heights, than the original?

Of course, when thinking of a person becoming a brand (an icon, a capital “I” Image) the mind, at least for me, instantly shoots to Marilyn Monroe. Sturken and Cartwright’s book shows a photograph of Madonna performing in her “Blonde Ambition” tour. But Monroe had passed some 60 years before Madonna’s tour. Madonna gained her inspiration from past
photos, films, and physical recreations of Monroe, never actually interacting with the human she chose to replicate.

            

    And then we move to a new millennium. In a matter of a decade, we go from Britney to Lady Gaga, both claimed to be the “Madonna” of our generation, both drawing elements from the Blonde Ambitionist herself. Clearly, Monroe’s iconic status still reigns as Hollywood’s celebrity-formula of how to make a Superstar.

    But wait, back up. Gaga and Britney are both replicas of Madonna’s Blonde Ambition, but Madonna is still very much prominent in today’s pop-culture (her song 4 Minutes toped the Billboard charts for over a month). How can we have a new Madonna, let alone two, when the original is still kicking? Do they, as Benjamin may suggest, diminish the value of Madonna? Do they enhance her status? Does replication imply replacement, especially in a day where technology allows us to replicate almost anything?

          

    There are certainly arguments to both sides. No, Madonna is no longer the ultimate “Super Star.” Yes, both Britney and Lady Gaga’s tribute has reminded our generation of the Blonde we seemed to have forgotten. However, the thing I find most interesting is Madonna’s reaction. She seems to be using these stars to reestablish her fame (remember when we all talked about her and Britney’s performance at the MTV VMA’s?) recently staring in a comedic routine with Lady Gaga in an SNL “cat-fight.”

    Perhaps it is the new digital age that makes the celebrity lifespan equitable to a housefly, but with the digital age comes digital retaliation. Madonna has been able to go viral a handful of times since she’s been replaced byBritney’s Baby One More time. I’m curious to see, in the future, if we’ll have stars dukeing it out each week, trying to replace each other as the “New _____.” Will all our celebrities converge into one giant Marilyn? Or will they all take a leaf from Madonna’s book and work together to benefit both their fame. I’m excited to see.

Understanding Icons

According to Barthes, we interpret meaning of visual representations of a sign. A sign is composed of a signifier (image, sound, word, etc.), and whatis signified by that image (the meaning). Saussure further expands on Barthes' model to conclude the meaning we take from the signified is directly related to social, historical, and cultural context. This can no better be seen than in advertising, and the iconic images which are frequently used. In 2004, Sean "P. Diddy" Combs' clothing line, Sean John, unveiled the largest billboard ever to hang in Times Square. Diddy himself is featured in the ad with his head lowered, holding his fist above his head.

The action shown by Diddy is

very reminiscent of the iconic symbol popularized during the Civil Rights Movement by Black Panthers, a group regarded as violent and revolutionary. Raising one's fist signified more than a loyalty to the Civil Rights Movement, the action had the potential to arouse fear in others.

As time passed after the Civil Rights movement, the raised fist became less and less connected to the Black Panther Party, and more and more connected with the idea of black power in general. The "Black Power" movement, was not threat-based like that of the Black Panther Party, it instead was associated with African American equality in general. At the 1968 Olympic Games, African American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos performed the Black Power Salute on the Olympic medals podium after finishing first and third in the 200 meter race. In this instance, the raised fist was seen as a testament to African American equality, not a

threat.

Although in each instance, the same iconic symbol was used. The action signifies a different meaning in each situation, and the context of the image creates its meaning. Although the motives behind the Black Panther Party as well as Smith and Carlos are clear, it remains to be said what the message of the Sean John ad is.

In a press release concerning the billboard, a Sean John rep writes Diddy "holds his hand triumphantly in the air, evoking a modern day image of the Colossus of Rhodes" (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-112100807.html). This statue, now destroyed, is said to have port

rayed the Greek God Helios (the sun god), who stood watch over the harbor of Rhodes. This raised fist, is neither a symbol of intimidation nor of resistance, this is a symbol of protection. What remains to be seen is what Diddy's raised fist is representing. The meaning of the one single action is changed depending on the context it is presented in. But what is meant when the context is an advertisement, not directly tied to any cultural or historical event, but invocative of all the events from which the icon has been created?

The Intrigue of Tweaking and Retouching

In today’s society, we have come to expect some degree of alteration in all of our photography. The alterations come in various forms and in a wide range of degrees of severity: they may come from airbrushing celebrities and models in magazines or may come from taking bits of several electronic images and merging them together to create a completely different image. Unlike when photography first became popular, we do not expect images that are featured in the media to be absolute truths; the previous “common sense” knowledge that “the camera was there, so this must have happened!” is no longer in play.

In fact, I think we are more intrigued by images that compel our imagination than images that have not been touched. We have begun to utilize “photoshopping” technologies to our advantage, sparking consumer interest in advertising campaigns and peaking viewers’ curiosity in television, film, and commercials. On this website, http://www.noupe.com/photoshop/45-brilliant-examples-of-photo-manipulation-art.html , I found a compilation of manipulated images that I found extremely impressive, since they look like they could be real (well…besides for the fact that most of these things could never happen in real life…). “Photoshopping” helps us to take several images and combine them into one image that we may never see in real life—it permits for endless imagination and creativity.

These images are amazing digital works of art. I wonder, though, did the digital artist have to ask the “owner” of each utilized image for their permission? The boundaries of copyright laws are still a mystery to me.

Advertisement and Iconic figures

One of the most interesting materials that inspired me this week was about advertisement and iconic figures which I found them related. Most companies advertise their products in order to sell at best and earn lots of money. The most powerful way to advertise would be hiring famous actors or actresses as many fans of them set them as their own iconic figures. SK-II, which is one of the highly praised cosmetic, also employs a popular Australian actress and theater director, Cate Blanchett. Not only fans of Cate Blanchett but also any people inspired by her beauty come to use the cosmetic.
In the advertisement, she is partially naked showing that she comes to reborn (more close to nature) as using SK-II, a cosmetic. Cosmetics make people feel reborn; users’ skins would get much better and they would be satisfied and feel like they go back to the past when they do not have any pimples or wrinkles. Many people would think if they use SK-II they would be like her having a perfect skin. Thus, the SK-II company has hired only famous and beautiful actresses in order to attract consumers. The company has hired each different actress for each countries. In Korea, one of the most beautiful and famous actress, Hee-Ae Kim is selected as a model for SK-II. Even though she is old, her skin is perfect and her beauty is always praised. Hee-Ae Kim is an iconic figure in Korea who symbolizes anti-aging and gorgeousness. Many women, therefore, consume SK-II as they are attracted by their iconic figure.
Thus, iconic figures have power to attract people, and advertisement companies take advantage of hiring iconic figures.

Link: http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/21442012.html

The Meaning of Images

As our textbook says, images have two levels of meaning: denotative and connotative meaning. It says that an image "connotes more culturally specific meanings" in addition to its denotative, "descriptive meaning." And the connotative meaning depends on "the cultural and historical context of the image and its viewers' lived, felt knowledge of those circumstances - all that the image means to them personally and socially." (Chapter 1, p19)
I find the chapter1 interesting because it points out that the images are interpreted differently to each person relying on the person's background. We might know that images are understood differently by the viewers, but I think when we see an image, we interpret it according to our own knowledge, background, beliefs, etc, but we are hardly aware that the same image can be interpreted in different ways by others. We see the image and interpret it and finish - we do not really think what others might view the same image. By showing us the idea of the two levels of meaning and the images with various interpretations, I think this chapter really opens up the door to "practice" how to look at and approach to an image to "decode" its meaning in different ways: how other people interpret it, not only how we or I view it.

I am taking a class of "Criticism of Postwar Japanese Literature" and in the class I found an interesting image in the article we did last class, which can be related to the idea of two levels of meaning.

This is pretty famous picture( I guess). I have actually seen it in my history textbook when I was in high school. The picture was taken after the end of WWII at the meeting of then presiding officer of the U.S. occupation, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and the Japanese Emperor Hirohito.
For me, this image represents the end of war and the historic moment of the meeting which was really important for the future of Japan. I didn't know (even though I am Japanese) that this image was once banned from being shown on media in Japan on the next day after the picture was taken because the Japanese government thought the image would border on blasphemy. But soon, the U.S. GHQ (General Headquarters) lifted the ban and the image got out on media in Japan, on newspapers and magazines in those days.What the Japanese nation at the time interpreted from the image was not merely what the image represented to me when I saw it for the first time. The image shows Douglas MacArthur and the Emperor stands next to each other: MacArthur seems relaxed, wearing no tie and putting his hands on his waist, whereas the Emperor looks pretty nervous, standing up straight to attention. For the Japanese who saw the image in those days, it was still the image of the historic event, but it also gave them a serious shock because the image destroyed the figure of the Emperor they idolized. The image from which people could interpret the Japan's weak, vulnerable position because of the gap between MacArthur and the Emperor's postures made the Japanese nation at that time fully and keenly realize its defeat and surrender.

Our textbook says, "Clearly, our interpretation of images often depends upon historical context and cultural knowledge we bring to them" (30). What this picture represented to me when I first saw it on the textbook was different from what it meant to those Japanese who actually experienced the end of the war. And of course, the interpretation the Japanese had might be also different from the one which the other people from different countries and cultures with different histories had. It might be difficult to have the exact same feeling and interpretation from an image as others have. I can not have the exact feeling as those who experienced the hard time of war felt from this picture. But, I can, at least, try to decode different meanings and interpretations that others might have from an image and try to understand them. This "practice" of looking might enable me to view images from different perspectives.



The image is from http://www1.toptower.ne.jp/~katumata/sub511.html

Parodies: Copyright Infringement or Fair Game?

Many of us have seen a parody of an ad or heard a parody of one of our favorite songs. I recently discovered a parody of Tik Tok by Ke$ha on youtube, which pokes fun at Ke$ha’s song as well as “Poker Face” by Lady Gaga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4npUdfEmbQ The parody has the same name as Ke$ha’s song, making its connection obvious. But, does changing the words to the song and slightly altering the music allow the parody to avoid copyright laws? And even if the parodies are technically legal, is there anything the artists can do if they are upset by the imitations of their work?

According to www.publaw.com/parody.html, there are four “fair use factors” that weigh whether or not a parody is legal. First, the parody can’t be used for profit. Second, it depends on the “nature of the copyrighted work”. So, if the original work is published or not, and whether or not the original work was meant to be informative. Third, the amount of material created vs. the amount of material used from the original work. And fourth, the financial effect the parody might have on the original work.

So, even though there are “rules” that define whether or not a parody is okay, there is definitely a gray area around them. Each parody is different and based on different original works, so how can we define where the realm of copyright infringement starts and ends? I think that the artist should be able to have more of a deciding role in whether or not the parody truly affects their work, but in reality, how much are these parodies really going to cause issues? I think that parodies should be fair game, just as long as it’s clear that they are simply that.

Buying Class

A piece of particular interest to me was the way we assign value to a work of art. Traditionally, we, as people and as consumers, say we admire things that speak to us on a personal level. Something that can explain our thoughts in a way more pure, more emotional, than words can express. Something that symbolizes perfection and beauty. What we don't realize is our taste is socially constructed. While researching this topic, I came across this interpretation of a Pollock painting: 

"Number 5, 1948 is a piece of poetry; great poetry. Jackson Pollock once raged that his work contained no accidents, a statement that may seem perverse and unbelievable - but look at this painting. It was made by pouring and flicking paint on to a canvas laid on the ground, and yet it is no chaotic action daub.It radiates structure and meaning, like the masks carved by America's north-western Indians, or the jazz Pollock loved to listen to while he painted." (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/114782.html) 

This description seems profound, detailed, almost undeniably accurate. Now take a look at Number 5: 

The description of structure and statement in the painting seem entirely incongruous to the image. So, why is it described this way? It is good taste to like a Pollock, and so people do. Though it lacks any realistic technique, this painting holds the record for the most expensive piece of art ever purchased at $140 million. Images hold no inherent value, but are deemed valuable because of the "who," the "when," the "why". 

The "buy to be" mentality plagues our country. Perhaps this is most easily understood when related to Barthes' model of a sign. The Pollock painting is a signifier, the signified is  wealth and tase. Thus, if you own a Pollock or a Picasso, you must be of a certain class and have an appreciable aesthetic taste. In the same way we can value art by its construction and origin, the purchases and associations we choose to make define us as an individual and demonstrate to others how we wished to be viewed. 

Yasumasa Morimura and the Icon

Picture Marilyn Monroe in her charming splendor, confidently staring at the camera that attempts to capture her essence of beauty that radiantly shines from within. Now, picture her a man. And not just any man, but the Japanese appropriation artist Yasumasa Morimura. For those of you who do not know what appropriation is, here is a quick definition. According to wikipedia.com, appropriation is the borrowing of ample aspects of man-made visual culture.

Morimura photographed himself in drag, to not only look like Marilyn Monroe, an iconic sex-goddess from the '50s, but also to thoroughly express his creative intention to recreate an iconic image that would definitely stir up controversy and even intrigue. This self-portrait most definitely did that as you can see below.



'Self Portrait, After Marilyn Monroe', gelatin silver print by Yasumasa Morimura, 1996, The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu >

Not only has he dressed up as Marilyn and posed ever so confidently in front of the camera, but also he has recreated multiple, and definitely recognizable iconic figures in obvious poses. Here are a few images for your viewing pleasure. As you view each one, guess who each one is.




http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_909_383160_yasumasa-morimura.jpg



http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images/909/383138t.jpg



http://web-japan.org/trends00/gdata/lisa03.jpg



http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/imgs/artists/thumbs/morimura_yasumasa/yasumasa_morimura_hepburn1.jpg

I'm sure that was entertaining in the least bit. But aside from entertainment, deeper messages and lessons can be learned from these more-than-creative photographs.

First off, photography is a vital medium that people may overlook due to its instant availability and reproduction from developed technology. In fact, it is the reproduction that may preserve the photograph and emphasize its importance in society and culture. In some cases, the initial meaning of the photograph may be lost due to reproduction as Susan Meiselas' Molotov Man that we discussed in class the other day. However, I'd like to argue that images that are more iconic such as Morimura's appropriations tend to shed the photographs in a more positive light.

"Do images ever lose their meaning?" This was a central question that we discussed and the answer, is, well there is no correct answer. It all depends on the context.

Morimura's works are entertaining, remind people of the iconic value of some people and images, and show that the medium of photography is able to impact greatly. Instead of writing off reproduced photographs as negative all the time, I believe that people should take the time to see the creative value in such art.



http://www.exporevue.com/images/magazine/3617amsterdam_reflex.jpg

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words...And A Lawsuit

During President Obama’s campaign for the presidency in 2008, an artist named Shepard Fairey created a poster depicting Obama looking up, his face illuminated in red, white, and blue, that famous Obama “sunset” campaign logo in the form of a button fastened to his lapel, with “hope” in capital letters emblazoned along the bottom of the poster. This poster became an iconic image of not just Obama, but of his historic campaign as well. Brandished onto everything from t-shirts to mugs to tins of mints, Fairey’s artwork became not only a symbol of Obama, but also an iconic image, as the poster reminds people of his historic campaign and what seemed like an almost revolutionary time for America.

However, in early 2009, The Associated Press (AP) claimed that Fairey had infringed on copyright laws, for the portrait he created was rendered from an image taken by the AP. But after finally admitting to actually using the AP image as the basis for his picture, Fairey claimed that under the doctrine of fair use, he had done nothing wrong because he had not intended to use the image the same way in which the AP had, and also he substantially altered the image. I thought that this meshed well with our in-class discussion regarding copyright, creativity, and originality. Whether or not Fairey was operating within the doctrine of fair use or illegally breaching the AP’s copyright is a subject of much debate, and the case is still ongoing.

What I found most interesting about the Fairey poster comes from its juxtaposition with the original photo taken by the Associated Press. This comparison illustrates that contextualization greatly affects how people see, perceive, and interpret what Sturken and Cartwright say are the “historically and contextually produced” (39) meanings of images. For instance, the photo alone (which can be seen in link below) taken by the AP does not really mean anything—it is just one of the innumerable images of President Obama that have been taken over the course of the last few years. It has no context in which we can specifically place it—just a picture of Obama looking up toward something, stationed in front of an American flag. But in the portrait that Fairey created, the word “HOPE” gives the image a context, and the button on Obama’s lapel gives the image context, a meaning, and an association. Now, what is almost an unreadable facial expression in the photo is transformed in Fairey’s poster into one of ferocious integrity, struggle, and hope.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/february18/shepard-fairey-obama-poster-021809.html (this link contains the photo and poster side-by-side)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/01/shepard-fairey-under-criminal-investigation-in-ap-case.html

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The influence of photographs

According to the text book, one of the paradox of photography is that "although we know that images can be ambiguous and are easily manipulated or altered, particularaly with the help of digital technology, much of the power of photography still lies in the shared belief that photographs are objective or truthful records of events" (Sturken & Cartwright, 18). This is a really important aspect, because this influnences people a lot, often in bad ways.

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/24/french-politicians-want-photoshop-warning/

This article tells that photoshoped photographs might be banned in France because they give bad influnce to people, especially young girls. As the article says, most of people feel sad, or miserable after they take a look at magazines or advertisements with celebrities, having 'perfect' figures(Becuase most people do not have those 'perfect' figures.). The fact is that those figures do not exist. They are produced. However, people, espescially young girls, think that those figures do exist, and regard them as ideal. So they do not satisfy with themselves, and be on a diet (often harsh). This usually led to eating disorder, such as anorexia nervosa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

This advertisement tells that those perfect figures are all produced with the help of developed technology; they are not real. We need to pay attention to the end of the advertisement: 'the dove self-esteem fund'.(In my opinion, it implies that because of those 'produced figures', people are even losing their self-esteem, so Dove company wants to cheer up people.)

Super Fake or Supernatural?

Photography, when it first arrived on the scene, has always been used for displaying the truth and reality of things. Then Photoshop came along and everyone began pointing fingers at photographers with pictures that might be slightly unique, accusing them of retouching their photos. But who can blame them? The past has taught us not to be gullible because even what our very own eyes see before us can be a lie; we all must be skeptics of everything we see or else we’ll fall into the trap of greedy corporations or corrupt politicians. We can never be too safe, right? But what if…what if an unbelievable image surfaced of maybe something weird, like a ghost or a UFO, and it was REAL but we all shoot it down because we are convinced it was photoshopped. What if we miss out on some real important discovery because all this talk about altering photos has scared us away?

http://www.ufocasebook.com/oregon1927.jpg

Photos like the one above that display something weird or inexplicable have surfaced on numerous occasions submitted by different people from all over the world for a long period of time. Every single time though, we just treat them as photoshopped pictures by people who are looking for their 15 minutes of fame and never for a moment consider the authenticity of it. I’m not saying that UFOs exist and aliens exist but we might just never know because time and time again, this “evidence” just gets shot down even someone analyzes it and says its real and untouched. It just makes me wonder, how much we are missing out on because of this photoshop scare. And I also find it funny that people to this day wonder if the man on the moon is constructed as well. What would the world come to if we couldn’t trust anything we saw?

http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/HotTopics/uploads/144685main_aldrin_moon.jpg

Authentic Southern Class

The clothing company Southern Marsh epitomizes southern life. Southern Marsh describes its mission as a clothing line in the following statement: "Known for its unique culture, beautiful people and timeless dress--The South is an area of the country that still finds time to escape the hustle and bustle of big city life. We do our best to package up a piece of that charm and give a snapshot into life with a little authentic southern class." As a native South Carolinian, I find it fascinating that a company is essentially selling the southern lifestyle by way of polo shirts, oxfords, and hats.

During Winter Break, I was in a men's clothing store in Charleston, South Carolina and stumbled across an advertisement very similar to the picture at the top of this post. Our textbook discusses how we interpret images and the historical and cultural contingencies that are bound up in interpretation. From the ubiquitous ads on New York taxis telling us to visit Sao Paolo via Continental Airlines to the advertising mecca of Times Square, we are constantly surrounded by advertisements. Unveiling the most fascinating aspect about advertising involves the knowledge that most corporations aren't necessarily advertising a product--they are selling a particular lifestyle. Due to the influence of advertising, we believe that our lives will resemble the lives of rock stars if we fly Virgin America or that we will look like Abercrombie models if we purchase their jeans (the company rarely displays actual articles of clothing in its advertisements). In class, we discussed how different models used in ads represent a clothing company's target consumer. The picture of the young man and woman in the advertisement for Southern Marsh is undoubtedly an icon for southerners and the southern way of life. This advertisement tells us, "Purchase these items and you will live a classy and happy existence." That the man and woman are donning "preppy" clothing and wearing sunglasses on a warm and cheery day reinforces the advertisement's role as a cultural icon. The next time I buy a T-shirt that has the phrase "Authentic Southern Class" written on the front pocket, I will look more closely at what I am actually purchasing. Am I buying the idea of a lifestyle or a cotton t-shirt?

photo 1: http://www.southern-marsh.com/collections/dress-shirts/products/oxford-dress-shirt

quote: http://www.southern-marsh.com/pages/about-us

Iconic Images

One of my favorite discussions of this week was based on the idea of iconography. Throughout history we have been shown images time and time again to resemble a certain moment, event or message. After many of these images are played in the minds of today's people, it becomes engraved into our memory and serves as more than just a picture. Even if the image is altered in some way or another, the basic structure of the image is forever remembered. What caught my attention in regards to the power of icons was the photo shoot done by Annie Leibovitz where she recreated epic moments from Disney classic films by replacing celebrities as the characters and creating more realistic scenes.

http://missgeeky.com/2008/01/29/annie-leibovitzs-disney-dream-portrait-series/

This photo shoot really reminded me of the importance of icons and the visual and mental power they have by just one look. Although the pictures have different people, different sceneries and are even presented in a different form, everyone knows what the photo is implying because of the history attached to that specific captured moment that Disney has engraved into our minds. Just as "El Che" is engraved into our minds and automatically pops up the second the beret wearing figure of Che is presented the viewer automatically receives the message that Che has come to stand for because of the amount of exposure that picture has been given. Iconography is crucial to the way images allow receivers to take in messages and meanings through the way they are presented.

What Would They Sue For, Bananas?

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100126/0702377897.shtml

The above article discusses a movie filmed by chimps that is being broadcast by the BBC, and raises the question of copyright. According to Chapter 5 of our textbook, copyright refers to "the rights to distribute, produce, copy, display, perform, create, and control derivative works based on the original." So what exactly does this mean in the case of these monkeys? Can they object to unauthorized use of their "work"? Or perhaps they should maintain the licensing rights to "Chimpanzees 2: Electric Boogaloo?"

Or perhaps we should take this situation as a sign that copyright law is outdated and ineffective, and lawsuits resulting from it often preposterous. Yes, artists could sue over the reproduction of their creative works, but if the reproduction has made their work more popular than it ever would have been without the reproduction, they might not want to grumble and complain too loudly. Exceptions to copyright law, such as the Fair Use Doctrine, can be vague and hard to comprehend (otherwise you wouldn't have semester-length classes focused solely on copyright issues). I don't have a black and white solution to the problem, but as it stands now, I don't believe copyright law is benefiting anyone.

Scarlett Johansson for Dolce and Gabbana: A Lesson in Semiotics and Iconography

http://www.luxuo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/scarlett-johansson-dg.jpg

This advertisement for Dolce and Gabbana lipstick portrays the actress Scarlett Johansson dressed, posed, and made-up like Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn Monroe was an icon who symbolized beauty, glamour, sex-appeal and femininity. Scarlett's corset and provocative pose capture the sexiness Marilyn represented. Her bright red lipstick, blood red nails, and bleach blonde hair are also similar to Marilyn's beauty signatures. After all, it is important for the consumers and audience members to notice Scarlett's lipstick since this is the product Dolce and Gabbana is trying to sell, but what other messages are also being sold?

This advertisement represents not only a famous icon (Marilyn Monroe) but also can be used to teach a lesson in Semiotics. In this picture the signifier is Scarlett Johansson and the messages signified are the ideals, expectations, and ideas in society that the images projects. Ultimately, this company is trying to sell their crimson lipstick by using this advertisement. There are many other goals, however, that this high fashion corporation are trying to fulfill regarding which messages they are trying to give to consumers. For example, the signified concept could be that if you are a woman buying this lipstick product you will be gorgeous, glamorous, and beautiful like the model wearing the lipstick in the picture (Scarlett Johansson). Perhaps psychologically the audience will also believe this glamour and beauty they will possess from the lipstick will lead to happiness, wealth, and an overall life of success. Even though this model is a signifier who should technically just be trying to sell the product in the advertisement there are many other signified messages represented as well.