Facebook:
Thesis: Facebook is a business, under the clever disguise of a social networking site, that is slowly taking a toll on the human relationship.
Agree:
I agree, that Facebook is “…profoundly uncreative.” The article states that it just “…mediates in relationships that were happening anyway.” All the while providing advertising agencies yet another way to reach the consumer. It’s true, if you think about it. Although I use Facebook and admit that it can come in quite handy when trying to make contact with someone you would otherwise not be able to, Facebook makes absolutely nothing. It’s just a space out in the wide-open internet for you to manage your relationships visually. Nothing more.
I also agree that Facebook is/has become quite the business (even though I don’t believe that Facebook is “…some kind of extension of the American imperialist programme…”) I had no idea the shear volume of money that Facebook was producing in investments and the like. A few people making butt loads of money off of the usage of what is essentially a product, however uncreative, by the masses…yup, sounds like a business to me.
I also agree that “…’share’ is Facebook speak for ‘advertise’.” That is quite the genius statement.
Disagree:
I disagree that Facebook is an ideologically motivated totalitarian regime. That seems a little harsh and slightly over the top. I also wouldn’t give it that much credit. I could be wrong, but I believe the people managing the site don’t do much but make occasional changes to the program hear and there. I believe it’s sort of a Twitter-esque situation where it is made into what it is today by its users. It’s only as much of a totalitarian regime as you let it be. If you let it completely consume your life, than yes maybe. But I think depending on how one uses it determines its level of totalitarianism regime-ness. Although I do not agree with a lot of what happens with Facebook, and the whole privacy issue.
I also disagree with Thiel’s philosophy of life. He ascribes to Thomas Hobbes view of life as being “nasty, brutish, and short.” He further feels that we should work towards a new virtual world where we have conquered nature…I’m going to have to dis agree 100% with this guy. Life is not nasty, brutish, and short. Its actually beautiful and the shortness of it makes one appreciate it ever so more (and last I checked, 80 or so years is quite a decent amount of time). And we should never want to conquer nature. It is not ours for the conquering. Furthermore, investing in immortality, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering are probably the worst, most dangerous, quality-of life-threatening things one could possible invest in, besides perhaps terrorism and death.
The Making of a Media Literate World:
I found this article to be quite interesting. Especially the idea of who or what owns the media that we are consuming. I liked George Gerbner’s point about how “…whoever is telling the stories within a culture has enormous power to shape how people act, think and buy”. And now since the “people” telling the stories are not actually people, but rather large corporations, our society is being run not by the people, but by the corporations. We are being sold our ideals and values through the media. I also like how Gerbner said that the people who do have stories to tell aren’t telling them because they are being drowned out by the distant conglomerates “…that have little to tell and everything to sell.”
I also thought it was great how towards the end of the article it talked about a hope for the future where the people will make the media instead of just blindly absorbing the media that is fed to us. It’s sort of a take-charge kind of message. I like it. We should be promoting our own values and ideals and beliefs, not accepting those values a company wants us to accept so they can later increase their profit….my values are not for sale, thank you very much.
Killing Us Softly:
-Advertising sells more than products. It sells values, images, concepts of love and sexuality, and of normalcy. It tells us who we are and who we should be. In this way, if they sell us what is normal, than they can always advertise products to sell along with this idea of normalcy. For them it’s a win-win situation. Sell us the concept, and then sell the product to “help” the consumer get closer to achieving this concept.
-Its bad enough that models are retouched so much so that as the film said, they have no pores, but now they have computer generated models. As if the ideal of beauty being sold was unreachable before, now even the basis of the picture isn’t even a real woman.
-I find the concept of turning people into things to be quite interesting. The film talked about how, in this case, females are turned onto/portrayed as things. The film then goes onto say that turning a human being into a thing is usually the first step towards justifying violence against that person. It was also crazy with what happens with women of color who are portrayed as animals and so called less-than-human. It’s just not right.
-I also found it kind of interesting how one aspect of the female anatomy can be used to sell such a wide variety of products. Who would have thought breasts would be a good advertising strategy for fishing line?
-I also found it interesting the concept of silencing women, where women were often portrayed with their mouths covered, or messages that implies that women should be quiet and passive and let their body do the talking and keep their mouths shut. And when women are portrayed with power, it is often with masculine power or the power is silly and trivial, such as using the men’s bathroom, ooohhh, how powerful.
-Sex is being used to sell everything from rice to jeans. And when one looks at the world of advertising, it appears to be the most important aspect of life, when really, its not the only thing out there. What continues to confuse me are the clothing advertisements where the people are, oh I don’t know, not clothed?!? And bondage being used to sell neck-ties…really? Come on people.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Ad Nauseam Part 5 and 6, Twitter, and Merchants of Cool
Ad Nauseam: Part 5
One of the things I found really interesting in part five was the advertisements that made use of famous quotations from deceased icons. The book gave quite a few examples, one of which was a quote by Einstein that was used in ads for Apple Computers, Nikon cameras, and the like. The quote read, “The trite objects of human efforts-possessions, outward success, luxury- have always seemed to me contemptible.” Maybe they just don’t know what the word contemptible means or they hope the consumer doesn’t know what it means, but it sounds to me like they insulted themselves. In my opinion, if they were trying to associate themselves with the great Einstein, they certainly picked the wrong quote.
I found the concept of subliminal messages in advertising to be quite… interesting, as well. I do think that advertising companies engage in what could be considered sneaky activities, but the word sex embedded into the dough molds at the Ritz Cracker factories? Sex orgy and bestiality in a clam plate placemat? Really? I’m going to have to disagree with Wilson Brian Key on this one. What, no one else has the ability to pick up on these things but him? Has he been bestowed with some great subliminal message debunking power that none of us happened to get? Furthermore, I understand that advertisements play on our emotions and basic human desires and what have you, but I can honestly say without a doubt in my mind that a donkey licking a long mustached man does not make me want to by a clam plate… Not even a little bit. I don’t think the whole concept of subliminal messages is to be disregarded, but the way Key interprets the concept just don’t seem quite feasible to me.
Upon reading the Idiot Consumer section, I felt somewhat offended by the advertising companies. “Stupid people…hogs…illogical mess…” Really? I feel like they should be describing themselves rather than the masses of people that make up the consumer body. I guess advertising is important for our economy and keeps it up on its feet, but if you think about it, those ad companies are the stupid ones. Using Kurt Cobain in an advertisement. What did they think was going to happen? They (as a generalization) just sound like an office of blundering idiots running around trying to be the first to use subliminal messages and then not because they are supposedly ineffective. And then be the first to advertise to the supposed fourteen-year-old consumer mind of the thirty year old adult, etc…
My question is what’s next? Advertising has evolved quite a bit over the years to bring it to the point we are at today. So we’ve gone through the subliminal message scare, and now there are apparently special codes that will make us buy more things. What else can they throw at us? (As a side note, the PANEXA ad was absolutely hysterical!!)
Ad Nauseam: Part 6
In part six, one of the quotes that really stuck out for me was when they said, “Public outrage has a shelf life: people can protest an issue for only so long before surrendering and getting on with their lives.” Sadly, it’s true. The majority of people are only fired up about something so long as it’s being covered in the news. Other than that, all you’ve got is the minority vote. For the vast majority of the people, their beliefs and passions fluctuate with what the media tells them they should be outraged about. It’s sad, really.
It’s crazy that none of the people who had foreign objects appear in their shopping carts did anything about it. Are people just blindly walking through life, not really giving any care to what they spend their hard earned money on? One would have thought that at least one person would have questioned the object. I would hope that I wouldn’t purchase an obscure item such as a meat thermometer just because it happened to be in my cart.
The credit card prank, although quite funny, was also appalling on the part of the credit card companies. No wonder so many people’s identities get stolen. The fact that he actually got away with an actual balance by completely BS-ing his mother’s maiden name and mumbling is amazing in a scary kind of way. Then the operator told him his mother’s maiden name! As if pretending to understand a mumble wasn’t bad enough, let’s just inform the kind gentleman of what he failed to be able to come up with the first time, shall we?
My question is how do we get more people to socialize in ways that don’t “…center around consuming stuff…”? I think the pranks, and “grocery store research,” if you will, are great. However silly it might be, at least people are thinking outside the box and using the brains they have been given by whatever higher force(s) they may answer to. Versus, being fed how to live and how you should live by the media and advertisements etc… So advertising has successfully created blind consumers, how do we deconstruct this and resurrect the independent thinkers?
Twitter:
Thesis:
Twitter, although it seemed to have some negative connotations is actually a social platform for people to not only feel connected to others but also take advantage of various discussions and educational conversations but also to organize and implement social, political, and intellectual change.
Agree:
I definitely agree that “…a whole new empire of distraction has opened up.” People can now continuously text other people they aren’t with while supposedly hanging out with the people they are with as they compulsively check Facebook, and Twitter one their phones. At the same time they can surf the web ,while watching TV, just to throw in some more media before the day ends, only to wake up the next day and the first thing they do: locate phone…www.twitter.com…just woke up, going to shower and then have breakfast! P-lease, we have enough media connections. Twitter is just one more thing for people to be ridiculously obsessed with.
I also agree that Successful businesses will have millions of Twitter followers, and will most definitely pay good money attract them. I’m not sure I see this as a good thing though. It’s just one more way for people to be reached by the advertising agencies. As if people aren’t connected enough to them. It’s just one more way that advertising is becoming part of our atmosphere, as was mentioned in The Persuaders.
Disagree:
I disagree with the amount of praise and accomplishment that is given to the concept of end-user innovation with regard to Twitter. Yeah, great, so we now have another way to talk to each other and snoop into each other’s lives. Wow, somebody had the genius idea of creating the ‘hashtag’ to better organize Twitter conversations and now lots of Twitter users do it, it’s called a trend. But have they cured a disease etc..? No, I don’t think so. Obviously communication is not a problem that needs to be solved. We’ve solved it already, at least six times. We can communicate in pretty much every form except maybe telepathy, depending on who you talk to. So leave communication methods alone for a while. Focus on something more important to society. Focus this end-user innovation into something more productive. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems like a waste of this so-called wealth of innovation that America supposedly has as demonstrated by Twitter.
I also disagree with this whole concept of ‘following’ people. First of all, it’s kind of creepy. Everybody ‘follows’ everybody else. It creates a society of followers; where are the leaders? Last I heard, there was no lead button on Twitter. Yes, it is just a word, but as far as I can see, it can’t help the human psyche any.
Relationship with Twitter:
I do not have a Twitter account. I do however, have a Facebook, and in all honesty, it can be kind of annoying. To be honest, the only reason I have a Facebook is because senior year of high school my best friend convinced me that it was a good idea and set it up for me. I can definitely say that if Facebook somehow exploded, I wouldn’t miss it, not even a little bit. But one social networking site, or whatever you’d like to call it, is enough for me. Between using the phone, texting, emailing, facebooking etc… I feel overly connected. If I were to get a Twitter account, something else would have to go, and at the moment I don’t see it necessary to put the time into actually get the account and get rid of something else. My life is much better spent elsewhere.
Merchants Of Cool:
1. Seventy five percent of teens have a television in their room, (is this really necessary?!?!) and one third have a personal computer.
2. Paradox of cool hunting: It kills what it finds. As soon as marketers discover cool, it stops being cool. There is no solution. By discovering cool you force it to move on to the next thing, only to be discovered again.
3. It’s called Market research, not human or people research. This begs the question, is more about understanding who people are as a customer, versus understanding who someone is as a person. Advertising companies listen to the people not so they can give them what they want, but so they can give them what they want them to have.
4. “The most advanced form of marketing today comes in the form of a three hundred pound body slam…professional wrestling.”
5. TV shows kept getting edgier and edgier, channels keep trying to one up the other on the sex scale to keep up with the demand of the audience. “Teenagers are consumed with sex.” “Sex is part of teens lives, so it should be portrayed in the media too.” The media sells kids an image of what they should be like, the kids then mirror that, and the media is there to see it. Feedback loop.
One of the things I found really interesting in part five was the advertisements that made use of famous quotations from deceased icons. The book gave quite a few examples, one of which was a quote by Einstein that was used in ads for Apple Computers, Nikon cameras, and the like. The quote read, “The trite objects of human efforts-possessions, outward success, luxury- have always seemed to me contemptible.” Maybe they just don’t know what the word contemptible means or they hope the consumer doesn’t know what it means, but it sounds to me like they insulted themselves. In my opinion, if they were trying to associate themselves with the great Einstein, they certainly picked the wrong quote.
I found the concept of subliminal messages in advertising to be quite… interesting, as well. I do think that advertising companies engage in what could be considered sneaky activities, but the word sex embedded into the dough molds at the Ritz Cracker factories? Sex orgy and bestiality in a clam plate placemat? Really? I’m going to have to disagree with Wilson Brian Key on this one. What, no one else has the ability to pick up on these things but him? Has he been bestowed with some great subliminal message debunking power that none of us happened to get? Furthermore, I understand that advertisements play on our emotions and basic human desires and what have you, but I can honestly say without a doubt in my mind that a donkey licking a long mustached man does not make me want to by a clam plate… Not even a little bit. I don’t think the whole concept of subliminal messages is to be disregarded, but the way Key interprets the concept just don’t seem quite feasible to me.
Upon reading the Idiot Consumer section, I felt somewhat offended by the advertising companies. “Stupid people…hogs…illogical mess…” Really? I feel like they should be describing themselves rather than the masses of people that make up the consumer body. I guess advertising is important for our economy and keeps it up on its feet, but if you think about it, those ad companies are the stupid ones. Using Kurt Cobain in an advertisement. What did they think was going to happen? They (as a generalization) just sound like an office of blundering idiots running around trying to be the first to use subliminal messages and then not because they are supposedly ineffective. And then be the first to advertise to the supposed fourteen-year-old consumer mind of the thirty year old adult, etc…
My question is what’s next? Advertising has evolved quite a bit over the years to bring it to the point we are at today. So we’ve gone through the subliminal message scare, and now there are apparently special codes that will make us buy more things. What else can they throw at us? (As a side note, the PANEXA ad was absolutely hysterical!!)
Ad Nauseam: Part 6
In part six, one of the quotes that really stuck out for me was when they said, “Public outrage has a shelf life: people can protest an issue for only so long before surrendering and getting on with their lives.” Sadly, it’s true. The majority of people are only fired up about something so long as it’s being covered in the news. Other than that, all you’ve got is the minority vote. For the vast majority of the people, their beliefs and passions fluctuate with what the media tells them they should be outraged about. It’s sad, really.
It’s crazy that none of the people who had foreign objects appear in their shopping carts did anything about it. Are people just blindly walking through life, not really giving any care to what they spend their hard earned money on? One would have thought that at least one person would have questioned the object. I would hope that I wouldn’t purchase an obscure item such as a meat thermometer just because it happened to be in my cart.
The credit card prank, although quite funny, was also appalling on the part of the credit card companies. No wonder so many people’s identities get stolen. The fact that he actually got away with an actual balance by completely BS-ing his mother’s maiden name and mumbling is amazing in a scary kind of way. Then the operator told him his mother’s maiden name! As if pretending to understand a mumble wasn’t bad enough, let’s just inform the kind gentleman of what he failed to be able to come up with the first time, shall we?
My question is how do we get more people to socialize in ways that don’t “…center around consuming stuff…”? I think the pranks, and “grocery store research,” if you will, are great. However silly it might be, at least people are thinking outside the box and using the brains they have been given by whatever higher force(s) they may answer to. Versus, being fed how to live and how you should live by the media and advertisements etc… So advertising has successfully created blind consumers, how do we deconstruct this and resurrect the independent thinkers?
Twitter:
Thesis:
Twitter, although it seemed to have some negative connotations is actually a social platform for people to not only feel connected to others but also take advantage of various discussions and educational conversations but also to organize and implement social, political, and intellectual change.
Agree:
I definitely agree that “…a whole new empire of distraction has opened up.” People can now continuously text other people they aren’t with while supposedly hanging out with the people they are with as they compulsively check Facebook, and Twitter one their phones. At the same time they can surf the web ,while watching TV, just to throw in some more media before the day ends, only to wake up the next day and the first thing they do: locate phone…www.twitter.com…just woke up, going to shower and then have breakfast! P-lease, we have enough media connections. Twitter is just one more thing for people to be ridiculously obsessed with.
I also agree that Successful businesses will have millions of Twitter followers, and will most definitely pay good money attract them. I’m not sure I see this as a good thing though. It’s just one more way for people to be reached by the advertising agencies. As if people aren’t connected enough to them. It’s just one more way that advertising is becoming part of our atmosphere, as was mentioned in The Persuaders.
Disagree:
I disagree with the amount of praise and accomplishment that is given to the concept of end-user innovation with regard to Twitter. Yeah, great, so we now have another way to talk to each other and snoop into each other’s lives. Wow, somebody had the genius idea of creating the ‘hashtag’ to better organize Twitter conversations and now lots of Twitter users do it, it’s called a trend. But have they cured a disease etc..? No, I don’t think so. Obviously communication is not a problem that needs to be solved. We’ve solved it already, at least six times. We can communicate in pretty much every form except maybe telepathy, depending on who you talk to. So leave communication methods alone for a while. Focus on something more important to society. Focus this end-user innovation into something more productive. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems like a waste of this so-called wealth of innovation that America supposedly has as demonstrated by Twitter.
I also disagree with this whole concept of ‘following’ people. First of all, it’s kind of creepy. Everybody ‘follows’ everybody else. It creates a society of followers; where are the leaders? Last I heard, there was no lead button on Twitter. Yes, it is just a word, but as far as I can see, it can’t help the human psyche any.
Relationship with Twitter:
I do not have a Twitter account. I do however, have a Facebook, and in all honesty, it can be kind of annoying. To be honest, the only reason I have a Facebook is because senior year of high school my best friend convinced me that it was a good idea and set it up for me. I can definitely say that if Facebook somehow exploded, I wouldn’t miss it, not even a little bit. But one social networking site, or whatever you’d like to call it, is enough for me. Between using the phone, texting, emailing, facebooking etc… I feel overly connected. If I were to get a Twitter account, something else would have to go, and at the moment I don’t see it necessary to put the time into actually get the account and get rid of something else. My life is much better spent elsewhere.
Merchants Of Cool:
1. Seventy five percent of teens have a television in their room, (is this really necessary?!?!) and one third have a personal computer.
2. Paradox of cool hunting: It kills what it finds. As soon as marketers discover cool, it stops being cool. There is no solution. By discovering cool you force it to move on to the next thing, only to be discovered again.
3. It’s called Market research, not human or people research. This begs the question, is more about understanding who people are as a customer, versus understanding who someone is as a person. Advertising companies listen to the people not so they can give them what they want, but so they can give them what they want them to have.
4. “The most advanced form of marketing today comes in the form of a three hundred pound body slam…professional wrestling.”
5. TV shows kept getting edgier and edgier, channels keep trying to one up the other on the sex scale to keep up with the demand of the audience. “Teenagers are consumed with sex.” “Sex is part of teens lives, so it should be portrayed in the media too.” The media sells kids an image of what they should be like, the kids then mirror that, and the media is there to see it. Feedback loop.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Ad Nauseam Parts 3 and 4, Is Google Making us Smarter?, and The Persuaders...
Ad Nauseam:Parts 3 and 4
What struck me as quite interesting was a the chapter in section 3 titled Shopping for Cancer. Part of this chapter talked about the flu season and what the book referred to as the flu economy. It blows my mind that the CEO of Walgreens told some of the people attending a meeting that if they were sick, they should go to highly populated areas to spread their germs. What is this world coming to where companies go out and infect the masses to make a profit? I understand the economics behind it all and if no one is sick chances are, people aren't buying cold medicines, but honestly where is the moral compass? Its bad enough that other forms of advertising work to create conflict in people so they will go out and buy products, but actually trying to spread sickness to force people to purchase products, thats a new all-time low.
In Part 4, I found the Shopping Spies chapter to be kind of creepy. It reminded me of the film Consuming Kids where children were studied in every aspect of their lives to the point where it was just inappropriate, so that advertising agencies could better target the children. You don't grow out of this stage apparently because researchers are now targeting adults in grocery stores. This is just plain creepy. Companies are now essentially stalking their target audiences. It also reminded me of in the Persuaders film where the man was being asked about how he felt when he was eating the bread. Granted, he was fully aware he was being studied, but the questions the researcher was asking just made no sense. "Do you feel lonely while eating white bread?" And this whole stalking method of research just makes no sense either. Let people do their grocery shopping in peace. Nobody wants a researcher trying to get inside their head without their permission as they casually stroll through the grocery store. It's just weird and unnecessary.
Is Google Making Us Smarter:
1. Thesis: Increasing technology will only serve to continue to augment our intelligence and make us smarter as humans, just as it has done throughout history.
2. Agree:
I agree that humans, evolutionarily speaking, have coped by becoming smarter. Our brains have "...changed to meet the challenge..." If there was an obstacle, our brains changed to overcome it, and as a result we have such things as written and spoken language, foresight, long-term planning, the telephone, and the automoblile. All of which have helped our species come to be what we know it is today.
I also agree that the "...age of the cyborg and the suoer-genius has already arrived." Everyone has all types of gadgets that they just take for granted. Were someone from 150 years ago to see the technology that we have now, they would be blown away. We have instant access to all kinds of information with just the touch of a button.
Disagree:
I disagree with the fact idea that we have been augmenting our intelligence for years and it hasn't proved to be a hazard so now shouldn't be any different. I believe that everything has a breaking point, and just because something hasn't caused problems in the past, doesn't mean it wont in the future. I think this rapid advance in external intelligences is not good for the human brain. I think it is making us dumber and not smarter. Everything in moderation;but we are not handling media and technology in moderation in the least sense of the word, and I do believe this will have adverse affects.
I also disagree that these reliances on certain drugs helps to increase our intelligence as well. I don't believe it does. I personally think that intelligence is something that comes from within the mind and cannot be falsely mimicked by way of a particular drug. This sort of drug-induced intelligence is not the kind of thing our brains need to cope with and change according to new challenges that arise. We cannot rely on a substance or technology to to our evolutionary adjusting for us.
The Persuaders:
1. "What advertising has always wanted to do is not simply to suffuse the atmosphere but to become the atmosphere and wants us not to be able to find a way outside the world that it creates for us." Essentially, advertisement agencies are trying to pin us, the consumers, into a world where we cannot escape their ads.
2. Brands started to try to forge an emotional bond with the consumer america, a concept known as emotional branding. With emotional branding, "...brands become more than just a mark of quality , they become an invitation to a longed for lifestyle, a ready made identity." It plays on something beyond human logic and reason.
3. There are agencies who go through every script and look for places where they can insert different products into programs.
4. People are watching fewer adds by either ignoring them or Tivo-ing them out, so advertisers are trying to place advertisements in places where people can't ignore them, such as in the shows themselves. And here we have what is known as product placement, although advertising agencies prefer to call it the "...seam-less integration of merchandise and narrative." But really its all the same.
5. There are certain codes that correspond with products and ideas that help to advertise it to the masses. Focus groups are done to find out how people react to certain words or codes.(Reptilian actions)
What struck me as quite interesting was a the chapter in section 3 titled Shopping for Cancer. Part of this chapter talked about the flu season and what the book referred to as the flu economy. It blows my mind that the CEO of Walgreens told some of the people attending a meeting that if they were sick, they should go to highly populated areas to spread their germs. What is this world coming to where companies go out and infect the masses to make a profit? I understand the economics behind it all and if no one is sick chances are, people aren't buying cold medicines, but honestly where is the moral compass? Its bad enough that other forms of advertising work to create conflict in people so they will go out and buy products, but actually trying to spread sickness to force people to purchase products, thats a new all-time low.
In Part 4, I found the Shopping Spies chapter to be kind of creepy. It reminded me of the film Consuming Kids where children were studied in every aspect of their lives to the point where it was just inappropriate, so that advertising agencies could better target the children. You don't grow out of this stage apparently because researchers are now targeting adults in grocery stores. This is just plain creepy. Companies are now essentially stalking their target audiences. It also reminded me of in the Persuaders film where the man was being asked about how he felt when he was eating the bread. Granted, he was fully aware he was being studied, but the questions the researcher was asking just made no sense. "Do you feel lonely while eating white bread?" And this whole stalking method of research just makes no sense either. Let people do their grocery shopping in peace. Nobody wants a researcher trying to get inside their head without their permission as they casually stroll through the grocery store. It's just weird and unnecessary.
Is Google Making Us Smarter:
1. Thesis: Increasing technology will only serve to continue to augment our intelligence and make us smarter as humans, just as it has done throughout history.
2. Agree:
I agree that humans, evolutionarily speaking, have coped by becoming smarter. Our brains have "...changed to meet the challenge..." If there was an obstacle, our brains changed to overcome it, and as a result we have such things as written and spoken language, foresight, long-term planning, the telephone, and the automoblile. All of which have helped our species come to be what we know it is today.
I also agree that the "...age of the cyborg and the suoer-genius has already arrived." Everyone has all types of gadgets that they just take for granted. Were someone from 150 years ago to see the technology that we have now, they would be blown away. We have instant access to all kinds of information with just the touch of a button.
Disagree:
I disagree with the fact idea that we have been augmenting our intelligence for years and it hasn't proved to be a hazard so now shouldn't be any different. I believe that everything has a breaking point, and just because something hasn't caused problems in the past, doesn't mean it wont in the future. I think this rapid advance in external intelligences is not good for the human brain. I think it is making us dumber and not smarter. Everything in moderation;but we are not handling media and technology in moderation in the least sense of the word, and I do believe this will have adverse affects.
I also disagree that these reliances on certain drugs helps to increase our intelligence as well. I don't believe it does. I personally think that intelligence is something that comes from within the mind and cannot be falsely mimicked by way of a particular drug. This sort of drug-induced intelligence is not the kind of thing our brains need to cope with and change according to new challenges that arise. We cannot rely on a substance or technology to to our evolutionary adjusting for us.
The Persuaders:
1. "What advertising has always wanted to do is not simply to suffuse the atmosphere but to become the atmosphere and wants us not to be able to find a way outside the world that it creates for us." Essentially, advertisement agencies are trying to pin us, the consumers, into a world where we cannot escape their ads.
2. Brands started to try to forge an emotional bond with the consumer america, a concept known as emotional branding. With emotional branding, "...brands become more than just a mark of quality , they become an invitation to a longed for lifestyle, a ready made identity." It plays on something beyond human logic and reason.
3. There are agencies who go through every script and look for places where they can insert different products into programs.
4. People are watching fewer adds by either ignoring them or Tivo-ing them out, so advertisers are trying to place advertisements in places where people can't ignore them, such as in the shows themselves. And here we have what is known as product placement, although advertising agencies prefer to call it the "...seam-less integration of merchandise and narrative." But really its all the same.
5. There are certain codes that correspond with products and ideas that help to advertise it to the masses. Focus groups are done to find out how people react to certain words or codes.(Reptilian actions)
Sunday, February 14, 2010
I do say, you shall not consume me with your constant drivel-A statement for the need of balance in advertising
For the Environmental Art Project, I chose to focus on the need for balance with respect to advertising. To do so I created a paper-mache figure. I then covered the figure in advertisements to represent how we as humans are constantly bombarded with advertising. Practically every part of our bodies and minds are constantly being advertised to. The figure is in the process of peeling an advertisement off of its arm. In front of the figure I constructed a scale to represent the balance that needs to be found. Overall, the meaning I intended for my project was that advertising and media is okay, but we need to have a balance and not let it entirely consume us to the point where we can't tell what's up or down, although, you can derive whatever meaning best suits you, its more fun that way :)
Monday, February 8, 2010
Yours Truely
Hello! I’m Sarah Schipelliti. I lived in Bradford, Massachusetts until I was about seven and then I moved to North Reading, Massachusetts. I have lived in Massachusetts my whole life until I came to lovely UVM.
The fun media experience I had, would have to be a movie that I saw and a book that I started to and am still in the progress of reading. The movie I watched, which I highly recommend, is called The Cove. It is an exciting and intense documentary type film that exposes the dolphin slaughter occurring in Taiji, Japan. It delves into not only the obvious animal cruelty of the whole situation but also other more under cover issues which include, but are definitely not limited to, the major health problems that surround the topic (such as mercury poisoning) as well the political issues. It was quite the eye-opener for me. The book I’m reading is called “The Dalai Lama, A Policy of Kindness: An Anthology Of Writings By And About The Dalai Lama”. I’ve really just started reading it, but of what I’ve read so far it’s quite good.
Twenty-first century media culture is an interesting concept. One thing that this media system is good for is allowing people to have quick access to information, practically everywhere they go. Nowadays all one has to do is “google it” to find any random obscure fact and they have an answer. Although I suppose there is a downside to this aspect as well. In a way, it decreases the need for libraries. Books will soon become obsolete if all information can be accessed via the web. Which, in a way, is sad. There is something special about going to the library picking the book off the shelf, turning page after page full of words written in ink on the otherwise blank paper, versus staring at a screen and scrolling down. One thing I absolutely dislike about today’s media culture is this concept that the text message is a conversation substitute. People will send a text and immediately expect one back. It’s as if not immediately responding to a text is like you saying something to someone in conversation and the person just stares back at you without speaking. As far as I’m concerned, text messages are phone emails, not a method of conversation. I’ve noticed differences even with my younger siblings in how we both utilize the text message. With them, whole conversations can be had via text messaging. The communication aspect of the human connection is being altered. Conversation is becoming more and more impersonal and distant, where “☺” replaces an actual face to face smile or inflection in the voice over the phone, where “lol” is supposed to replace that infectious sound we so fondly call laughter. It scares me to think of what the future media culture and media technology will do to the art of conversation.
The vision I have for my own future involves me gradating from UVM with a Bachelor’s of Science in Nursing. I hope to get a job at a hospital somewhere in the Boston area that is very involved with research (that I hopefully could be involved with as well). I also hope to get a Masters in Public Health and a Masters in Nursing. In addition, in the summer of 2012 (the summer after I graduate) I will be biking across the country with my friend!! (Who is also in this class and who also mentioned this in her post as well.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
