I thought this picture was helpful for me since I am a visual learner. Maybe it will help some of you. This triangle helps to show the connections and importance of the rhetoric levels.

Something else I noticed as I was trying to find something to post to this blog, is that any time I would search rhetoric of images, denoted images, or anything relating to the Barthes article, was about death or politics. There always seemed to be a negative example of real advertisements and images that people criticize and really try to analyze. It seems that our society focuses on the negatives more than the positives and that people are so critical of each other.Barthes article did not focus on just good at bad, he just analyzed images, and it seems that our society only knows how to analyze images and people in a negative way.

Changes in Advertising

According to Shield and the website that I came across, advertising has changed and advanced over the years, Shield even dates back to the 1800’s. Not only are the purposes and messages of ads being portrayed differently, but the tactics and strategies also.

I came across this online http://www.gisbergen.eu/paper3e.html and its really interesting as it explains the changes in specifically magazine advertisements just over a short time period of 20 years; from 1980 to 2000. What is truly amazing is how much can change in that amount of time.

In Shield’s article, it states that in 1890 to 1910 advertisements were focused on the utility of the product being advertised and later in the 50s and 60s advertising became narcissistic and people judged products interpersonally. And then starting in the 70s until now, advertising is geared and directed more towards imagery on lifestyle. “Today, many product images are totems for lifestyle achievements and subgroup membership” (28).

I find it interesting to see how advertising began with an emphasis on utility and the use value of a product to now almost materialistic and status symbols relating to lifestyles. The fact that “Lifestyle advertisements and advertisements that simply capture a “look” are purposefully ambiguous”- that way people can interpret the image how they want and desire to own the product in their own manner. These changes and advancements in advertising goes to show how culturally embedded this type of media is and how influential It is on society.

"Stay Thirsty My Friends"

Shields' article on "ways of seeing" and "ways of looking" got me thinking about some of my favorite advertisements, and why I believe them to be affective. First, Shields defines "ways of seeing" as, "culturally imbued codes which are consistent across not only advertising images but other visual images as well..."(26). Second, "Ways of looking" are, "the address of the image to its spectators"(26).

The first advertisement is the always classic Geico Caveman commercials.

Shields suggests that advertising, today, is about showing the viewer's an ideal lifestyle. The Geico caveman commercials are not only funny, but also adhere to this idea. The suggestion being that Geico is so simple even a caveman can use it provides viewers with an ideal service that is simple to use and for everyone. The choice of the caveman character is also significant. It seems to suggest that if you do not use this service, you are outdated.

The next advertising campaign is probably my favorite of all time.

The Dos Equis commercials are a great example of Shields' view on advertising. This commercial attempts to attract the viewer using humor, and I believe does a great job of doing so. Effective advertising stays with you, and I always enjoy watching these commercials and will watch them on Youtube.

Shields' "ways of seeing" and "ways of looking" come in to play with the DOs Equis commercial as well. The commercial shows a character with masculine traits, an adventurous lifestyle, and glamour. Society sees these as desirable traits in a man. A cultured, adventurous, bearded guy. The main message of this commercial is if you drink Dos Equis, your lifestyle will be improved and perhaps you can even become as epic as "The most interesting man in the world."

The most important trait of these commercials is humor. Humor sticks with people. After seeing most of these commercials for the first time, I would bring them up in conversation. This is why these advertisers are good. By using humor, they guaranteed a spread of their products via word of mouth.

Shields talks about how “the fashion image promises satisfaction upon obtaining ‘the look’ and the look can (and must) be purchased” (32). This is seen within every advertisement, hence the point of it being advertised. But mostly everything looks the same, doesn’t it? Girls, how many times have you looked in People Magazine and the new collection for summer or fall clothing is out and it looks like everyone is wearing the same color and same type of clothing? It starts with one designer and once the secret is out, every designer then makes the same type of style, but said to have their own “unique” touch and make just a little cheaper for the consumers’ liking. When thinking of this, we see these articles of clothing, but do we really go through each one trying to find the best, even when they look like each other? I know I just look at the price and if it looks good I get it. Switching gears now, what about the iPad. The iPad came out and maybe a month later, every other phone network came out with the same type of device, but cheaper. Even though the iPad is said to be the best, when we look at all the other devices that came out, we see the same thing. It’s the “look.” But if we really see what each of them have to offer then we can make an accurate decision. The advertising world is deceiving, but it also works to manipulate people’s minds!

http://www.dutchdailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/ipad.jpg

SIN PIEL

Reading Deluca’s Image Politics really made me think of how important a visual image can be in impacting people’s choices. When reading about the ‘mind bombs’ and how much influence they had on important policies. It made me think of how even though it is people in power than have the ultimate say on the issues, normal people are more than them; we have the ultimate say of things. If everyone disagrees on a certain topic then they will have to change their policies to please us and keep their position of power. One of the most amazing ‘image-events’ I have seen was organized by a Hispanic organization called Animanaturalis.org that has as a purpose to spread and defend the rights of all animals. This was a protest done in 2009 in Madrid, it is a part of annual protest called Sin Piel (without skin) which is done to raise awareness and to stop the fur industry.

This installation consisted of volunteers being naked and poured with fake blood laying in the floor with donated fur coats being taken off while one of them spoke facts about the cause. This is only one of the ‘mind bombs’ done by this organization there have also been flash mobs and other types of protests which can be seen in the website (http://www.sinpiel.org/). Its intention was to attract the people that were passing by this very public place and for them to listen, the media soon found out and immediately they were all there witnessing it. Their main purpose was for regular people to listen to what they had to say, because they have no political affiliation they had no intention in targeting a specific political figure. They know that the change in policies can only come from the changes of attitudes of the people. In this sense they have been very successful because each time there are more people adding to the cause, there are thousands of volunteers and now there are representatives in this organization in more than 10 Hispanic countries (one of them Ecuador). Personally I can see that their activities have been effective because recently the organization here in Ecuador did a very strong campaign against bullfights which are a very significant and old tradition here in Ecuador. To the shock of everyone in the last popular consult a law prohibiting bullfights in Quito (host to one of the most important ‘ferias taurinas’ or bullfighting events in Latin America) won. This is just one of the many examples of how this organization is achieving changes in policies through their daring and graphic visual protests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9w5BlXKSq8&feature=related

A typical family portrait is usually set with the man or father standing behind the rest of the subjects while the others sit or are short enough to stand. The way that women are made to sit in these types of photos makes surrenders them to the role of "passive/female" as described by Shields, while the men take on the "active/male" role. It may seem like a lot to draw from a simple family portrait but images can convey so many meanings and this is just one image of hundreds of thousands circulating around the globe that portray the power struggle even more vividly than this photo. Hard- and soft-core porn also portray this dichotomy in a more graphic and pressing way. These portrayals of the male/female relationship such as the way a man stares and the way women play into that by worrying about there appearance; all of this turns women into objects and the woman is the one who does it the most because no matter how much they may deny it most enjoy the attention from men as they walk down the street.

This brings me to my next point--There have been many scandals of famous actors and professional athletes (all male) that have been charged with sending pornographic text messages to women. Some men think it is okay to send pictures of their genitals to women they speak to but the reality is that they do not enjoy it--nobody really wants to see that, honestly. On the other hand many women send pictures of themselves to men all the time but the fact is no one ever really finds out about it because they are not repulsed or put off by this action. The media seems to make such a big deal about men exposing themselves to women but you rarely, if ever, here the opposite. It is a bit of a double standard that favors women but it doesn't seem to be going away but something to keep in mind when looking at ads, pictures, books, etc.

The Undependability of Periphery

In the third Elkins' reading "Looking Away, Seeing Too Much," there is a small thing mentioned that a lot of people don't realize unless they truly think about it. That is, our peripheral vision is completely undependable. You might be thinking "What do you mean? My peripheral vision is fine!" While it may be true that you notice things in your peripheral vision, you can't really comprehend them. A little home test - turn on your TV to a random channel and put it on mute, then look just off to the left or right of the screen. After a few seconds, rewind your DVR and watch it again. If you can tell me in good conscience that you saw EXACTLY what was going on on your television screen, then congratulations, you're a medical marvel. Chances are though, all you saw were colors, shapes, and movement. The things that we "see" in our periphery aren't usually all that important, but it is a definite reminder that no matter how clear a picture we think we have of the world we look at, our eyes really can't capture the whole scene. Below I included a link for a little bit more official field of vision test.

http://www.testvision.org/

Elkins chapter 3: Deflected Seeing

Rest In Peace, Grandfather.

I apologize for this blog post being late but I did it intentionally. Earlier this week my Grandfather passed away. Yesterday was the wake and today was the funeral. I wanted to wait until after these two events to reflect on how my vision was deflected over the past week since I had last seen him in his hospital bed looking like half the man (in weight) that I have "seen" and "known" for 21 years. I want to recall three instances of personal deflected seeing related to death from this past week.

First, I want to share with you all that this is my first first-hand experience with death and any horrible illness like cancer, so this is all new to me. The visit I had with my Grandfather about three months ago was the first time physical signs of his illness had become noticeable, although they were not drastic. In this instance I rate my "deflected seeing" rather low because although he seemed to have lost a few pounds and wasn't as mobile as he normally was (this was a man who walked 4 miles everyday for the past 40+years), he was still as mentally sharp, whitty, and characteristically funny as always. Sitting there visiting with him wasn't much different than any visit I had ever had with him, and the physical signs of his illness were similar to someone getting over a cold or fighting the flu, not someone who was fighting cancer. In this instance I saw my Grandfather as someone who was sick, not someone who was dying.

The second instance was when I visited him in the hospital a few days before he passed away. By now the physical deterioration had become overwhelmingly noticeable as it caused severe weight loss and extremely limited mobility of any of his extremities. Furthermore, his speech had become nearly obsolete, a characteristic that has truly made him the man he is with his clever puns, jokes, and witty banter. Although I couldn't deny the sight of him before my eyes, I deflected my seeing by still visioning him as the man I have known my whole life. I can recall how hard it was for me to make eye contact with him and shifted much of my line of sight to the others in the room during conversation, picturing he was just his old self sitting there in the bed. I can recall looking directly at his face and seeing it in my eyes but in my mind I projected the face that I have always seen before he got sick. Although I could no longer deflect the reality of his dying state, I still held on to the image of what he used to look like.

Finally, the wake and funeral services proved to be another instance of deflected seeing, although this time it wasn't the sight of his physical face and body, but rather through pictures and storeis. Today was like talking about someone who was supposed to come to the party but missed their flight and couldn't make it - like they were alive and well somewhere else but just not present here. The cheerful mourning and funeral setting were both reminders of reality but also of the past, which I (it is difficult to explain) both consciously and unconsciously saw or "visioned" Grandfather of yesteryear.

Whenever I hear his name or think of a reference or connection to him who do I think of? Who and what do I picture? The cliche is that first impressions are everything and what people most remember, and I believe this to be the case. I think of my Grandfather from my earliest memories. I picture him as all the man who grew old and aged well until became sick. I picture the conversations, the room we were in, the places we went, the things we did overwhelmingly more than the past 5 months. Anytime an image or recollection of him in his illness pops into my head it is hard to tell whether it is conscious or unconscious action that immediately deflects those painful images away and recalls the good ones. Either way, deflected seeing is a reality in itself which allows us to cope with life and move forward as it acknowledges reality but soothes the mind and the soul.




http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/philly/obituary.aspx?n=eugene-p-simonson&pid=151655994&fhid=4331

The Hmaun Mnid: Azamnig or Diecvnieg?

I received an email with this mind game in it and thought of it when I was reading about how our minds can deceive us and how we construct much of what we "see" with our own mind. For example:

I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.

from: http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/can-you-read

I was shocked that I was actually able to decipher the paragraph. This shows how our minds "have a mind of their own" for lack of a better cliche. The brain decides what we are going to remember and what we are going to see. This can be a scary thought because we may begin to wonder if our own brains are tricking us and what the world really looks like? Is there an objective way to see objects or is it all dependent on how our mind perceives the object at hand?