Typography

What peaked my interest in this week's reading was the absence of discussion on typography and logos, both of which are essential to the "manufacturing of desire," as it were.



Whether you have noticed, a lot of the new typefaces used in today's market are sans serif--plain, discreet, understated. Clean, concise. For example, Apple Computers capitalized the sans serif typeface with their i__(insert product name)__ products. A long time ago, back when circuses were still popualar places to go for fun, you saw text on advertisements that were serifs. A long, long time ago, people wrote in really serif-ed font.

And clearly, this chapter has left out typography's importance.

I wish I could go into further detail, but my knowledge of this study is limited by only leisurely study.

I don't

appreciate

Post

Modernism

(stop)

It's kind of difficult to talk about the effects of culture on our media, since there are so many forms of it available to all kinds of people--save for those who don't have the means to access these technological resources. I do think, though, in the words of Adorno and Horkheimer, that "the whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry." This culture, as it were, to me seems to be a desire for perfection, which we can see manifest itself in our popular media. As we are all familiar with, Adobe Photoshop and like software provides the means to essentially change the very meaning of images--whether it be the communication of one's age or framing of a situation (scenarios abound).

But the good thing is that with the increase of creative resources available to society, innovation increases--albeit not exponentially. Perhaps, then, the democratization of media can gradually alter popular media's status quo. In fact, maybe we can even say that this change is already occurring. Simply through user-defined sites, such as Digg, del.icio.us, and YouTube (of course), we can see a plethora of content that would otherwise be untouched in the mainstream media. Consequently, while there may be a "popular media," there is certainly still are forms of it out there that are created by and catering to select communities.

Intelligent Design vs Evolution
In 1925, a landmark court case found high school teacher John T. Stokes guilty of teaching the theory of Darwinian evolution in the classroom, fining the educator $100. Today, the fight continues, ironically evolving into what is now a debate between intelligent design, rather, and evolution.

Above is an image of a flagellum, which is a collection of proteins that propels its respective bacterium through whatever medium it happens to be in. According to proponents of intelligent design--who contest that all life on earth is the product of an intelligent, divine will and not some random natural selection--this image is truth manifested that evolution is a hoax. However, like the defense that manipulated the George Holliday video of the Rodney King beating, intelligent design believers overlook the fact that the flagellum can still operate while lacking 80% of its protein structure. This fact--the image doesn't portray.

Science is an observation-based way of thinking. If you then move that and say, “We can’t find any evidence,” and therefore it was made my God or something or other, that simply moves into a totally different kind of intellectual discourse and is utterly different—it becomes not objective, which science is, but subjective.
David Attenborough
Zoologist

For the whole story: A War on Science (Google Video: query "intelligent design")

Seeing is Treating, by HBR
Today, even with highly advanced imaging technology, scientists and doctors are finding it much more accurate to couple it with other means of detecting disease. For instance, "in vivo imaging technologies are combined with in vitro laboratory diagnostics," to render the most effective means of catching malignant growths in the bud. What is interesting to note, therefore, according to this article, is that scientists and medical practitioners cannot rely solely on imaging technology--as advanced and clear as it may be--to diagnose and treat a patient. Today, imaging technology in the medical field seems to have become a means to an end, rather than the end itself, which is what the notion of photographic truth has so long contested.

Indeed, the popular study and use of biotechnology renders the lens almost obsolete. Lab technicians must rely on electronmicroscopes and other imaging hardware that harnesses the powers of... very advanced technology that is certainly not very familiar to the lay-student. And with man looking further inward into our bodies, it is no surprise that a convergence of imaging and biotechnology "can improve the quality of health care, the delivery of [said service], and the operational and financial performance of both health care providers and medical technology companies."

Hallelujah.

Seeing is Treating. Harvard Business Review. February 2007.

The gaze -- a good amount of bull.

The latter portion of Spectatorship, Power, and Knowledge on the influence Western gaze has on the perception of Eastern culture illustrates very well the ignorance people, who intend on adhering to differences, have from not being fully exposed to different kinds of societies. Most significantly, the last image--the Guess advertisement with the scantily clad women in the rice paddie--evoked more confusion and disgust than curiosity and a desire to purchase Guess products. Having come from Asia, being of Asian decent, this advertisement communicates incredible ignorance on the part of the creative department of whichever advertising firm it was that made it, and I am disinclined to buy any more goods from Guess now.

I aimed to bring a lighter feel to the leaflet, since Americans are trying to get Iraqis to listen to (I presume) American broadcasts. Therefore, I made an icon out of the tower, and iconic/indexical broadcast signals, to entice. Notice also the symbols that are text: they look Arabic, which is intended to represent infusion of both cultures.

HuangPunctum

By highlighting the risque within an otherwise innocuous proposal, the meaning of this image dramatically alters. No longer does the simple advertisement speak to our frugality. "You love 69" mocks the institutions of religion and marriage--dismisses them even--which are used as facades by some as a means to satisfy their carnal desires.

Indexical signifiers

flickr.com, u/n: LeggNet

When an image becomes more than it was meant to be

Cultural structuralism's hand--something of Adam Smith's invisible one--is in everything. That's why I think today's title is so apropos. For those of you who have been reading a little up on the news, you might have noticed something about Cartoon Network's latest ad campaign that has created mayhem in the city of Boston.

Here's the rundown: 'Boston sign scare'. (Be sure to check out the video clip of the news report, A scary 'promotion'.)

More importantly, though, this is clear indication of how images--and what they can become unintentionally--are interpreted within their socio-cultural backdrops. News reports, as those cited in the links above, show how what was intended to be a (harmless) advertisement campaign became the focal point of much ado about nothing. Simply because Americans are in a constant state of apprehension were Lite Brite sets deemed a terrorist ploy.

Stemming from the observation, I argue that, contrary to what Struken and Cartwright propose, viewers don't make meaning out of images at all. Rather, it's the prevailing social construct. If we think about it, without 9/11 and the great political and military debacle that will go down into history books as the war in Iraq, I don't think many people would even think of a bomb if he or she were to see this contraption. Granted, these toy sets look oddly suspicious to be advertisements, but then what good is an advertisement--an image--without any means of imprinting its existence in viewers' minds?

John made a good point about how staged images are becoming synonymous to their real-life, in-the-moment counterparts. Setting aside the entire issue of old versus new media, stagnant circulations, decreasing viewerships, and everything else that's plaguing print and tv journalism, we have to come to realize that a lot of what we take for granted in terms of "multimedia literacy," as it were, is easily recognizable to our experienced and educated minds as (as John put it), "cheap entertainment [...] to garner interest."

But for the average Joe, a scene from 24 could very well represent what real life means to him: chaotic, staged--to his disadvantage, and all-together surrealistic. (I personally have no idea what the average Joe would think about 24 though.)

Having said that, I would like to question whether volleying criticism at, say, FOX, is in our place. Being aware of what some of us might perceive as irresponsible journalism (or general image presentation) is all well and good, but if we were to impose our own interpretations of what is or isn't realistic onto someone else is, I would dare to argue in the extreme, a blatant violation of First Amendment rights. I'm not proposing that criticizing a broadcaster equates to violating Constitutional rights, but I am suggesting that if criticism were taken to the next level and evolved into a means to make available only certain types of images at certain times, we would have in our hands a very, very dangerous entity--be it the government, a corporation, or a news broadcaster.

I place hope in the invisible hand. I have enough confidence to say that the forces between profit-driven media will be checked by public welfare-conscious news providers (i.e. The Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, and The Associated Press, just to name a few). It seems only natural that such a dichotomy exists in our world of divisiveness, especially since the media is really getting shafted by the rapidly changing technology it faces. Maybe someday someone will start a revival of photojournalism and replace images of, say, 24, with real-life images at least.

not just dim sum

Yam cha is the best food in the world. I could have it everyday of my life (with cups of jasmine tea). Ooo! So goooood. I urge everyone who has not shared the joy of yam cha to do so as soon as possible, so that you may be introduced to the tastiest goodness-es ever to be served in bamboo dishes.

COMM-201 Discussion: 26 Jan

I just had to comment on my first COMM-201 discussion of the semester, since it and IML-101 use the same text by Sturken and Cartwright. While I might not have any particular insights beyond that which has already been discussed in both hours of class, I do have my opinions about what individuals perceive in regard to the punctum.

As of (roughly) 10:10 am this morning, I have been greatly disillusioned by the misunderstandings of some of my peers. This morning, we touched upon the "inherent value or meaning" or things, if the reader will, and generously created discourse about what each of us thought about this oh-so-profound topic. In little time, much to my dismay, it was clear to me that many of my peers were disillusioned by the materialism they are entrenched in. For many of them, things had interpretive value. And I don't mean value as per our giving it value. I mean value as in: God, for instance, created it and it had original value (whatever this value would be, I don't know). While it probably is a topic of debate in scholarly circles, I would argue that the very computer I am working on has no inherent value. Likewise, the bottle of Perrier sitting next to my hand has no value as well. Without saying, my books, worth $200+, which I bought from the devilish USC bookstore, have no instrinsic value as well. Clearly, these material goods only have meaning and value because others impose meaning and value on them.

I know this idea is unsettling, because, if this assumption were to hold true, quality of skill, design, framing, etc. would all have no value either. This would mean that your average kindergarten doodle would be equated to that of Picasso's. Or a van Gogh would be worth as much as shredded papers. This ambiguity of difference is what the Taoists of ancient China believed in, and we are more than likely all averse to this idea.

That's not to say that we should all become monks and nuns and devote a life to ascetism. No. That would be unbearable and insane. But what we can do is recognize that what we, as viewers, bring to a photograph, a painting, film, and anything else, is merely according to the whims of our minds per the influences of society.

When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer
by: Walt Whitman

When I heard the learn'd astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts, the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the learned astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

I sit down and try to write something meaningful from three hours of class. And after having explained the day's lesson to a friend later in the evening, I find myself no closer to the truth than I am now--only more distant and removed. Like the speaker above, I am overwhelmed by the innate complexities of a system I never brought myself to encounter. The pen scribbles ink onto a sheet of paper, but neither has existential significance without the other. Likewise, a pen does not serve its purpose without a mind to use it, and the ink is worthless unless it draws something meaningful. Naturally, these "somethings" are only important to us because we impose on them meaning--meaning that is inherently undefined and therefore utterly meaningless as well.

Like the speaker, I find little solace in technical intricacies: layers upon layers of systems upon systems of this and that, creating otherwise utterly meaningless content. The bear bones of the facts indicate that you and I interpret and analyze what we see according to our predisposed notions of what we're seeing. We're taught that a shoe is a shoe and not a car, and that such an instrument is used for bipedal movement (not necessarily for growing flowers), so that when we see a shoe we instantly think of one walking or running. Likewise someone tells us that the Statue of Liberty connotes liberty and freedom, so we buy into that and everything else our country stands for; but all of us really know it's just a statue that was given to us from the French.

With that said, I'd like to remind all of us that we do not have to be the defined, but rather we can be the definers. Perhaps stepping outside the norms of society may be daunting for some--if not many--and that is understandable. But all I am asking for is that we be true to ourselves as readers and viewers, to look up at the night sky for ourselves, and not for anyone else.