Benjamin first states that mechanical reproduction "advanced intermittently and at leaps of long intervals, but with accelerated intensities" (218). By this he is referring to the work of photography and the concept of reproducing a unique image seen by the eye. He later expresses that there is an "aura" that is negatively impacted when mechanical reproduction is present. This "aura" is the originality of the work. It is no longer original once it is reproduced, but the aura represents nativeness and the genuineness of the picture.

An image that comes to mind for me is the Grand Canyon. I went about ten years ago and I was just beside myself when I was looking out into the valleys and how big it was. It really took your breath away knowing you were standing right in front of it and in a way it had an aura about it. There was this feel when I was there that expressed serenity and calmness and it was was one of those places where you had to be there to believe it. Now I do have pictures from that trip, but I look at them and just see different parts of the canyon and I really don't have a feeling toward them. It's almost like, "oh there's another picture of the canyon." There's no amazement or excitement I feel from looking at the pictures because being at the Grand Canyon, you can look for miles in the distance and see a lot and you can turn your head left and right it have a new view, but with a photograph, there is only a 4x6 space to look at and no turning to find a new view. I think this is what Benjamin is trying to described when he says that mechanical reproduction destroys the auras of images.

For my final blog post for the class I wanted to bring attention to the way Zelizer described the photos we have all seen from September 11th and the concentration camps during the Holocaust as iconic. These photos have been in circulation for such a long time and have been seen by millions of people, each showing the tragedy of the times. Being able to recognize these photos at a glance without hesitation we are able to pinpoint when it is from and where it happened. This is exactly what makes a photo iconic but I also got to thinking about what makes other things iconic, is it: the subject? event? just repetition? artist behind the scenes? I came to the conclusion that it HAS to be a combination of all of these things because they all work hand in hand.

Then I thought about other images that are iconic in our society, for example, Marilyn Monroe from The Seven Year Itch, the Beatles walking across Abbey Road, Playboy bunny logo, and Andy Warhol's Campbell's soup can print, the Chanel logo, to name a few. Each image has gained it's reputation because of who's in the photo, what th

e image represents, a notable time period, the story behind it, or even just who created the image. The photos, people, or images society deems 'iconic' have done so over a period of time. Icons don't pop up overnight, it takes many eyes and minds to categorize something this way.

On a different level there are things certain individuals deem iconic, that society as a whole might not. This takes us back to the different ways people use photography and images to remember and cope. But still the iconic factor of something comes from the repetition, subject, etc. not matter the personal opinion behind it.

Invisible Adults

When I read Hirsch's article on presenting child victims, I thought of the Invisible Children campaign. One of the terrible things about this war is the use of child soldiers. This term "child soldier" just doesn't seem right at all. How can you make a child kill someone? I think that one reason that the Invisible Children campaign works so well is because it is relatable. College students and high school students are the same age as these children who are living very different lives halfway across the world. It makes us believe that something is wrong over there and it is our responsibility and duty to theses children to fix it or at least attempt to make it better. If Invisible Children had tried to present "Invisible Adults" I don't think that the response would have been as great because it would have lacked the relate-ability and drama associated with children.

Here is a link to one of the trailers for an Invisible Children film.

Racism

From multiple classes in high school we would talk about racism and especially about schools and sports. Some people believe that it is racist to have an Indian mascot. (some other mascots are discussed but this is most popular). My high school mascot was a Lancer, a type of Indian that used to be where our community is. Our school chose to use them as a mascot in memory of them. But some people, (Indian race and others) think that it is racist and disagree with it...Here is a link of some of the disagreements: http://www.aimovement.org/ncrsm/

What do you think? Is it a honor or dishonor to be a mascot? How would you feel if you personally, or your race were a mascot for an University or school? How do you think it compares to animal mascots?....Just something to think about.

I think it is a honor to be remembered. And compared to animals...I don't think it could compare. I think mascots should be used symbolically for the school and community; to have some meaning or representation of who they are and what they are about. A mascot is a motivator and something to represent you and your school. I am proud to be a Lancer.

Mr. President, How Could You?

Take a look at the photo above. The president is ogling over the girl in the red dress right? Photos can be deceiving, especially still photos. With a still photo, there is no exact story being told with the photo by itself. It needs an interpreter to describe what the setting is and what the story is behind the photo. Photos and videos have a narrow viewpoint compared to being there watching it. Even being there watching it, you might see something someone else didn’t and the angle you are looking could be interpreted differently by another person. In the article from “The Trials and Tribulations of Rodney King “, Nichols writes that “no image can show intent or motivation” (p. 33). You might look at the photo above and speculate it was the intent of Obama to ogle over the girl. How did you come to that possible conclusion? You might make the following conclusions, Obama is a man and men like to gaze at pretty woman (as woman might say, men are pigs due to this behavior). He is also in the age range where he would be turned on by looking. The girl is wearing a bright red sleeveless dress, has bright curly flowing hair, has a great shape, and would catch the eye of many men. You might think, as the president, he does not have a lot of time for many private, personal encounters with his wife and in-turn is on a heightened state of awareness to a beautiful woman passing by.

This type of speculation or guessing is what Nichols defines as “algebra of probability” often referred to as “street smarts” (p. 35). “Using such an algebra requires an ability to develop and follow tacit conventions describing the boundaries of a discrete situation or event, character types, their usual behavior, the motivations and intentions governing specific encounters and their likely result” (p. 35). This “algebra of probability” can often get police into trouble when encountering a perpetrator. If the police have a shootout and fight at the end of a car chase every time the person is a black male, they will come to the conclusion that is probably going to happen this time too. Many times it does happen, but sometimes it does not and that is when cops get into trouble. Just like the photo above, guessing what happens based on your street smarts might lead you to the wrong conclusion.

With all that in mind, take a look at the video.

Still convinced that Obama was ogling? Video shows more and has audio, but the view is still small and it still needs some narration by the broadcaster. Without someone pointing anything out, would you have known to look for anything at all?

Lastly, regarding Nichols claim. Can you capture intent and motivation on camera? I say yes, as long as it does not involve a human. For a human, intent and motivation are thoughts that cannot be seen or read. Humans can also change their initial intent or motivation at the last possible moment. Animals on the other hand don’t have that switch unless something goes wrong physically with them. Take a look at the photo below. What is the intent of the cheetah? It is obvious that the cheetah intends to kill and eat the gazelle and is motivated by instinct and a hungry stomach. The cheetah is not going to chase down a gazelle for fun and it won’t stop unless he catches it or something goes physically wrong. Something like he got too tired, he broke a leg, he fell in a hole, etc. One might argue that since intent and motivation are thoughts and emotions, then humans are the only one that has them and it does not apply to the animal world. But that is a different argument to have.

Rodney King

I decided to blog about Rodney King this week. I was almost 20 when this event occurred in LA, yet can barely recall the specifics. My husband who is a few years older than I could only recall a few facts from the trial.

I found The Trials and Tribulations article very interesting. I can vaguely recall the video being shown on the news and hearing about the riots in LA. Among the many things I learned from the article, I never knew the amateur video did not record the entire event. As horrible an event it was, I found myself wanting to research the event more.

I am sure to many in 1991, it was to be a quick open and shut case, yet it wasn’t. George Holliday, a man awakened by the commotion outside his apartment taped only one and half minutes of the beating. This was surely enough evidence to prove that these LA police officers were all guilty, yet it didn’t. This certainly proves the point made in the article that no image can show intent or motivation.

I found this article interesting and informative. Good pick.

photo evidence.

The different ways mentioned in the Sontag article regarding how photography is used reminded me in particular of Facebook. As photography becomes increasingly mainstream, more photographers look for a way to share their photos, and therein their experiences with their friends. It can, however, cross a line from sharing to becoming an integral part of life.
From my own experience, I've watched the photo sharing application of Facebook change from good to questionable. When we were high school, and Facebook was brand new, photo albums were slow to upload and could only contain 60 pictures maximum. Most people my age didn't have their own digital cameras, so pictures were mostly limited to special events and vacations, similar to photographs in the past. Eventually, picture messaging became common, and mobile uploading began. With mobile uploads, people could document instantaneous moments whenever their cell phone was handy. Album limits were removed, and everyday events became public domain.
With these changes, it became as though events had to be photographed as evidence that you were there. If there are pictures of an event that you attended, and you weren’t tagged in any photographs, you might as well not have gone. A photographical timeline of high school and college began to emerge for all of your Facebook friends to peruse, as a glimpse into not only the special events in one’s life, but also the personal moments captured by mobile uploads.
This is something that is touched on in the article; the idea that photographs are evidence. The influence of Facebook has taken this one step further, that the pictures are an integral part of an event, and there is this visual log of everyone’s activities. Social networking sites have increasingly adapted this mobile uploading feature as it has become more widely used, through photo tweets and programs such as Instagram. There are upsides to this way of social networking as well; in the way that photographs can show actual moments instead of simply describing them, we can update our friends without words, giving them actual glimpses into our activities through photographs that we choose to share.

Projected Memory

In this past reading Hirsch discusses the relationship we have to the suffering of others via photographs. I found this writing very interesting and could not help but think of the people of Japan after reading Hirsch. How she describes the way we feel towards others we do not even know is extremely accurate and had me thinking. At first I didn't think I felt this way until I went online to find some of the devastating picture from the earthquake in Japan. Once I searched for pictures things such as the picture here appeared. Just seeing the destruction from the earthquake made me instantly feel sick. We take so much for granted every day without realizing how lucky we are. Then as the search continued I began to come across pictures of children and families. This is when I realized that Hirsch was spot on with what she had said in her writing. Seeing pictures of children, helpless and without a home made me instantly feel for as i imaged myself in that situation as a child or seeing my little brother in those circumstances. These images can not help but have us create a connection in one way or another. However, this natural destruction made me make a connection with Hirsch's writing and we can see through these images how powerful pictures and images can be in everyday life.

Understanding Hirsch

As I read the reading from Hirsch, I found it a little difficult to find an experience that has happened to me like the one she describes in her reading. The worst natural disaster that has occurred is that the Delaware River overflowed and ruined many houses close to and far as well from the River. Hirsch argues that photographs are problematic and I believe she states this because pictures taken of natural disasters cause a sense of discomfort and when we see them, we feel bad for the people affected by it. She also describes this concept of postmemory, which is looking at photos and automatically thinking of something similar to that, but it is not exactly initiated with yourself. With this, I then thought of tornadoes and earthquakes. There have been many tornadoes and earthquakes mainly in the midwest, but recently there was a earthquake in Philadelphia, about 40 minutes away from me. It was not severe, but it had me thinking, that this could happen to anyone. This is where the postmemory kicked in. The picture is of a tornado from Missouri that just occurred recently. It automatically made me think of the earthquake/tornado near me that happened and how it could have been actually severe. It didn't actually happen to me, but since it was so close, I feel like it almost did. This just shows the power that pictures have on peoples minds.

Hidden Message

After reading Trials and Tribulations it got me thinking about the way media and images has such control over our thinking. News systems carefully map out what they release and say to the public; images such as this one are released to prove that something happened but they also paint a picture with their words and using descriptive words or phrases to describe something. "Cooked and channeled, emotional investment rises and falls along the dramatic curve provided by the news systems" (p.20).

This perfectly illustrates the impact media has on us as well as other people. Reading about the Rodney Kind case enticed me to search for and watch the video and after watching it I felt that the video didn't just depict violence by the LAPD but it also lets viewers catch a glimpse of the evil that lurks inside people. The officers tried in the case defended themselves by saying that they feared for their lives and this was merely self defense but I truly do not believe this.

For more than 4 officers to fear for their lives by one man just seems extremely unbelievable and makes me question why some people, people that are supposed to be role models and mentors, would hold such a position. This video made me wonder why these individuals would want to be police officers if they were so easily convinced they were in danger. Personally I do not want to be "protected" by people who feel they are better than others and resort to unnecessary violence or those who are afraid or confrontation with a possible threat. Somewhere in there, there must be a happy medium or people who will protect those in the community with dignity and pride.

The Ring of Fire

Marianne Hirsch’s essay Projected Memory: Holocaust Photographs exposed a concept that was particularly interesting to me which was that of ‘postmemory’. She explains how especially camera images can capture an essence and become very ‘familiar and iconic’. Postmemory is this terms that she uses to describe when you remember an experience that maybe never actually happened to you when seeing a photograph. But it is not just is a level of remembering a certain even it is about linking it to your own experiences and maybe relating to it and to the people in the picture because in a sense you feel that you could be that person in the photograph. She mentions that sometimes these images can become so important in your life that you construct your own memories around it and in a sense they become part of you and something you experienced as well.

With the recent earthquakes in Chile and Japan I saw many pictures that made a great impact in my life and that really made me understand the point that Hirsch was explaining through postmemory. Ecuador is another country that is also on top of the Ring of Fire of the pacific, meaning that like those countries that suffered those terrible earthquakes we are too in the zone with most seismic risk in the world. We have had tragedies in the past because of this, which inevitably brought with it the eruption of several volcanoes as well. When I hear the news about the earthquakes especially the one in Chile (because it is so close), it was really shocking because it could have easily been us. When I see the faces of the people who suffered and lost everything I think about how it could have been here in Ecuador. So even though I have not lived through an earthquake I can easily sympathize with the victims of these earthquakes because it has happened here before and there is a great chance that it could happen in the future.

Here's to Change

Gross' essay on "The Ethis of (Mis)representation" got me wondering if the media has changed any bit since the essay was released. After searching online, I found that the work was released in 1991. Depending on the subject or person, twenty years can be a short or long amount of time. I wanted to focus on the media, and if any changes (particularly positive) have occurred with the media's portrayal of homosexuality and heterosexism. Gross writes, "The rules of the mass media game have a double impact on gay people: not only do they pick and use weak and silly, or evil and corrupt, cliche'd characterizations, but they exclude and deny the existence of normal, unexceptional as well as exceptional lesbians and gay men"(196). I would like to propose otherwise. Though it has been (and still is) a long process, the media's portrayal of homosexuality is changing.

Ellen DeGeneres is a well known media personality and comedienne. In 1997, DeGeneres came out on public television as a lesbian. If Gross' interpretations of this subject are true, the public and media would have shunned her. Her career would have gone to waste. However, it didn't and Ellen Degeneres career thrived. She went on to have her own talk show in 2003, which is still on the air. The quote from Gross that I included above does not seem to apply to DeGeneres. Here is an openly gay woman, who has gone on to have great success. The part that makes me think Gross is wrong about the media is that the show Degeneres hosts is not defined by her sexuality, but by her personality. She is a talk show host, like any other, that discusses current issues, has guests, tells jokes, and even dances with the audience.

I like to believe that our culture and society is changing. That we are becoming more open and accustomed to lifestyles that may be different from our own. While Gross' essay certainly has its merits and evidence to back it up, I am of the belief that the media, and with it society and culture, are evolving to become more accepting.

Gross- Heterosexism

Gross seemed to give reasons as to why our society looks at homosexuals the way that they do. He blames mass media, like television, and movies. Gross states that “Heterosexism represents the belief that a particular complex of culturally defined sex and gender roles and responses is natural, that other configurations are unnatural-deficient, diseased or delinquent- and, again, that these differences represent a value dimension in which the ‘natural’ is the better alternative” (Gross,193). Gross brings up a solid point when he talks about how mass media outlets play a vital role is social definition for men and women. “in the absence of adequate information in their non-mediated environment, most people, gay or straight, may have little choice other to accept the narrow and negative stereotypes they encounter as being representative of gay people” (195). Heterosexism is so evident in our way of watching the media and that in itself instills the views that we have about our society and culture.

A solid example of this, as an avid Soprano’s viewer was in when Tony and the crew shot and killed Vito because he was gay. This shows a direct correlation to the power that the media has to show the “power” heterosexuals have over homosexuals. What Gross explains is that the history of homosexuals and in particular heterosexism among mass media outlets does not seem to be changing. “There surely are opportunities in the new communications order for more equitable and morally justifiable structures and practices, but I am not sure we can get there from here” (201). Our society and culture seems to stubborn about change.

I had to read this piece a few times to really understand it (or at least pull out a few key ideas).

I found the advertising/image ideas of Rosiland Coward and Myers quite interesting. I am sure we have all paged through fashion magazines at some point in our lives. Many of these magazines are full of advertisements for fashion, jewelry, and cologne and contain photographs of scantily clad men and woman. Many times, that may be all the advertisement contains.

I decided to search for the original advertisement of the Guess? Jeans ad from our reading. Even though the photo was shot in black and white and altered to give it hues of gold and bronze, I feel this advertisement is pushing the limits and can quite possibly be considered pornographic.

I am not a prude by any means, but a mom to 2 daughters and would have a lot of explaining to do if they were to see this advertisement in a magazine and wonder why these naked people are an ad for men’s cologne.

I assume the majority of my fellow classmates are true college aged students. I would be curious to hear what you think of this photograph.

Mind Bombs and Meat

In reading DeLuca's essay on mind bombs and what they aim to accomplish, I kept thinking of a certain organization's print ads that do NOT aim to enact political change. This organization does the same things with their ads that most other companies try to do - attract a broad audience. They use barely clothed women and catchy slogans. Yet, unlike Greenpeace or Amnesty International or some other NPO that works for the greater good of the world and is almost unanimously supported and respected, this particular organization is hated by many who do not support it's ideals...


This organization is PETA, an often radical animal rights advocacy group. The ad above, featuring a fully nude Roselyn Sanchez, is just one of a number of ads in PETA's "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign. But why does an ad campaign such as this one, featuring such gorgeous women like Ms. Sanchez less than clothed, fail. It is because of the message behind the campaign. The campaign featured in DeLuca's essay that dealt with Soviet whaling was encouraging us to help save the whales. PETA is also trying to help save animals, but they are doing it at the expense of other people's way of life. Who are they to tell us not to wear fur? Who are they to tell us that "meat is murder?" It is a known fact that people don't like being told what to do, and people probably like being told what NOT to do even less. Furthermore, while the whaling ad and fur ads both point to an enemy, it is interesting to note who the enemies are. The Greenpeace ad points to the whalers as the enemies, the PETA ad points to...wait, what?...yep, it points to YOU. Kinda hard to get behind an advertisement that paints yourself as the villain, isn't it? So while both ads are similar in a sense, they are different in their motivation and their target, which leads me to believe that is why one succeeds and the other fails.

Mini Mind Bomb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gspElv1yvc

This link is to the Sara McLachlan Animal Cruelty Video. I am sure some of you have seen this commercial on television, but it reminded me of a mini mind bomb because it shows all the sad image of suffering animals and presents an opportunity to help them through the SPCA. I wonder if people are really affected by this, sure it is dramatic, but if you see it multiple times on TV does it really have the same affect each time? It lacks the intensity and controversiality of a mind bomb, but it is trying to go with the mind bomb affect by making the atrocities known to the public. There is no specific "bad guy" that is targeted in this commercial, but it is evident that there is an ongoing problem that some people want to change. So I guess instead of a full blown mind bomb, this commercial could be considered more of a kick in the shin -- it will knock you off your feet at first, but then it goes away after a while, until you see it again. Instead of blowing up your brain and leaving a lasting impression, it creates a bruise that eventually heals and goes away.

Barthes Rhetoric of the Image- Reflection

Advertisers are constantly trying to grab the attention of a viewer. Using rhetoric theory, an advertiser will take a poster, design it in such a way so a person will stop for a moment, review it, digest it, and be influenced take action (buying a product, service, etc.). Take the ad above for instance. You might walk by this poster, glance at it and say, what is going on here. The consistently light background draws your eye to search for something. You find a spot to look and that is the center where you see a strand of hair going through some liquid. You wonder, what is the purpose of this? You seek for a definition that leads you to look for something. Normally you would look from left to right and then downward. But nothing is on the left so you see that there is a dark colored bottle in upper right with small text above it. You might step up to the poster to read what the text is that says “for thick hair”. You then realize this must be some kind of shampoo, you look at the bottle and it is. You have now have been hooked, you looked, you consumed what was being conveyed, you figured out what the hidden message is (hair shows thicker in the liquid), you discover it is Parachute shampoo, you have an ah ha moment and a “that’s cleaver” moment. That adds a feeling to the message which in turn will allow for a better memory to be created. Parachute shampoo is the linguistic piece of the photo and it is very easy to see how creative advertising ties in the photo to the linguistic messaging.

Amy Komsa June 15, 2011

"Ways of seeing are culturally imbued codes which are consistent across not only advertising images but other visual images as well such as oil painting and portraiture. This consistency in representation helps define what is “natural” to be seen and enjoyed. Cultural ways of seeing are instrumental in allowing the argument that visual images, especially advertising images, are merely “reflections” of the larger society and its social relations. "

Gender effects how the ad is “decoded”. A man may see this ad below and buy the product for he wants to attract women that look like the model, while women may see the model and feel a pressure to look like the model, because if she does not she will not attract men. In our sexually oriented world this is a very important issue.

Advertisers, or the “encoders” create their ads with a specific image in mind. They want their viewers to view this ad and think exactly what they had planned. One way in doing so is by adding speech/words to the “text” which reduces multiple meanings. In this Axe (or Lynx in the UK) you can see that the use of words on the ad has influenced how the ad is interpreted. Our culture is very sexual and this ad is used to sell their product. In fact the product itself is not even in the ad. There is a small image of the product in the bottom right hand corner. Instead you see an attractive woman’s body (no face), that is “dirty”. This visually appeals to males and they are more likely to buy this shower gel because they want girls that are “dirty” to want them to “wash them”.
People will buy Axe (Lynx) over other shower gels that do not appeal to them sexually. Will this shower gel actually help the men find situations with model girls throwing themselves at the men, probably not, but advertisers use the power of seeing to draw in costumers.
This advertisement is very similar to Haug’s argument that sexuality can be visually attached to almost any product and therefore give the product value. The half dressed girl hardly relates to the men’s body wash, but the visual sight of her in the advertisement creates a bond between a girl in a bathing suit and axe and therefore when picking out a shower gel the image may pop into the buyers head and make them want to buy this product over another. Ultimately the sellers are selling “sex” rather then their product.
Annett Kuhn states that visions of women have culturally been seen as the property of a men. Women in today’s society are objects rather then women. This women in this ad does not even have a face. She is merely a body, and the man who is using this product is able to do what he wants with her. The advertisers let this image stay ambiguous, you are not sure if she is blonde or brunette or if she is asian or Hispanic, etc. instead as the decoder you are able to imagine what you want with her.
Women are used often as sex symbols in advertisements, and whether its beer, cars, gum, jeans or anything the product is able to use the sexuality to sell the product.

representation through new words

After watching Marlon’s video about how representation was at work with the term “LIGAS” among his friends, I immediately thought of all the slang that is part of the different subcultures I’m a part of. There are so many terms that are unique to my group of friends, my group of peers, and my age/socioeconomic/gender group nationwide. These terms would have absolutely no meaning to someone outside the group, as the meaning for these linguistic symbols is exclusive to the group’s members. Those on the outside would be clueless as to what we’re talking about.

Within my sorority, a couple girls started throwing around the word “gehl" (as a sort of slang for the word “gal”) and its meaning relies on its use and who is using it. We always say it in a certain tone, and always in a sarcastic, silly way. You can refer to someone as a “silly gehl” or a “working gehl” or a “tired gehl.” But to anyone who isn’t in my sorority or my group of friends must think we’re crazy. Why are these girls saying a simple word in such a ridiculous way? The meaning of the word is within the culture. A gehl is just a girl, but its representation to our group has a certain intangible nature to it. It’s a certain kind of girl, but it only really makes sense to us. I recently found out that Gehl is an agriculture machinery company, so to alot of people, the same word has a totally different meaning. But if I were to ask my mother, who is neither in my sorority nor in the agriculture business, gehl is probably just a nonsense word.

Another example that goes a little broader is the “betch” craze thats sweeping the college-aged girl world. A “betch,” which isn’t a real word but something that we’ve put meaning on, is a certain girl, similar to a “gehl,” who is savvy and sassy and generally awesome. She puts herself first and doesn’t care who is hurt in the process. Yet this term was defined by a certain group, and is only understood by that culture. The posts on the betcheslovethissite.com website refer to a certain socioeconomic group of college girls who value certain things, and such values would have no meaning to someone outside the group. An outsider would think that betch is a misspelling of “bitch,” but it is far from that to those who have helped shape the meaning of the word.

New words and slang provide a clear indication of representation; the group that makes the word makes the meaning. These are only a could words that I'm personally familiar with; as a member of these groups, i'm inherently left out on the meaning of other new slang words, until the word gains some personal cultural value for me.

Rhetoric of the Image- Barthes

Great advertisement right here! The first thing that this image does is grab your attention to the man in the full body cast. He looks like a mummy. Then you start wondering what this ad is for. You look down, see the LaZer bike helmet symbol and look back up to the guy and realize that the top of his head is completely fine. You have to kind of smile/laugh at this one, it’s a great ad. The linguistic part of the image is short and to the point: LAZER Bike Helmets. What else needs to be said?

The most important thing about this ad, that you see a connection between the linguistic message and the visual image that the advertisement conveys. It “speaks” to us. Just like Barthes says in his chapter titled Rhetoric of the Image.

“If the image contains signs, we can be sure that in advertising these signs are full, formed with a view to the optimum reading: the advertising image is frank, or at least emphatic” (Barthes pp.33).