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?
1 comment:
I think Sturken and Cartwright would fundamentally agree with you about the importance of cultural construction and the very powerful impact it has on not just how but what we perceive. The ATHF ad campaign is a great example and you do a nice job of interpreting the reactions to it -- as long as these guys don't get convicted of a felony, the campaign has been fabulously successful in creating publicity.
Post a Comment