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.