Everyday Observations: October 2009

Friday, October 23, 2009

This was an interesting exhibit...
It was pretty cool to see real drawings done by some pretty famous artists.
Seeing drawings that old was more amusing than the drawings themselves. I valued them based on their old age. Even though there were only a few I actually liked, I still enjoyed them because I had never seen drawings that old up close without looking online or in books.
It's amazing that they managed to survive for this long.
I feel like these weren't the best representations of the art made during those times,
but it is understandable that they were the only ones we were able to get an exhibition of since I'm sure they are all pretty valuable. The fact that the drawings have been through many wars and traveled so far is pretty fascinating.
It's interesting that the master artists were the ones that set the rules and decided what was acceptable in terms of realism. The funny thing is that their idea of realism wasn't even based on reality, since they used males as models for female drawings. The use of male models might be the reason why the women still look so masculine in many of the drawings. I noticed that the difference between the earlier works and the more recent ones was manly found in the poses. The older ones seemed more faint and relaxed and the new ones seemed more expressive and action oriented.
These drawings also depicted the ideal human bodies of their time because many of the drawings were not realistic with today's standards. This might be way off topic, but it reminds me of beauty magazines today and how all the representations of beauty we see are airbrushed. Even the "beautiful" people today are completely airbrushed, and even though we know this, we still accept them in the photos as representation of the ideal.
The medium of representing beauty has changed over the years, but it seems that altering reality while keeping things "realistic" has continued to be the trend.
:)

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Text/Image Hunt

I want EVERYBODY to think alike.

In this aspect, the everybody is bolded in a sense to make everyone responsible for our environment and do our part in making it better by being Eco-Friendly. The "I" can be the viewer and "everybody" as the rest of the world, but interestingly, both the "I" and the "everybody" can be the viewer. The viewer feels responsible and sides with the message and includes themselves as part of "everybody" as well.

I want everybody to think alike.

By thinking differently, we can think alike. We can be apart from the group and be different thinkers, but we will still be in OUR group and think alike. This brings up cult style following. The different thinkers feel as though they are separate and superior, but by doing so, they are thinking all the same way. This was more of a play on words and opposing meanings that really actually mean the same thing.

I WANT EVERYBODY TO THINK ALIKE.

This combination creates a more hidden meaning than the others do, but is still effective in a way. In this sense, the text tells us very strongly that this is what perfection looks like... Expensive, fit, beautiful, rich, sexual... all of these being put together in a fantasy of sorts. An unattainable fantasy that beauty magazines portray. They show ultimate beauty and the viewers then feel badly for not having it, but who also go out and try to "buy" this fantasy. To add one more thing, this message (text and image together) seems to have some kind of authority over the viewer and audience not allowing them to oppose. Sort of like a "dumb" and robotic society that is often stereotyped with models.

"I want everybody to think alike."

on p.118 in Pop Art: The Critical Dialogue by Carol Ann Mausun.

The Persuaders

The Persuaders was a very well made film that talked about advertising and our culture.

I believe that advertising is a big part of our culture even though it seems as an almost anti-culture idea. Mark Crispin Miler, a man featured in the film, states that as culture becomes all about advertising, it loses the ability to be a culture. Wasn't advertising made by us? Isn't it a creation of our culture? I see advertisements as a key object in the advance of our culture and how we communicate. An effective advertisement is not only art in my terms, but also shows great understanding in our understanding of ourselves (if that part was confusing to read, read it again... I couldn't fin a better way of saying it)

The idea that we can study ourselves and our culture and from it make more effective advertisements should not be taken lightly. It shows that we have some kind of understanding of our complex culture.

The more effective ads seemed to be the ones that didn't actually advertise the product, but the culture and belief around it. Since I am admittedly in love with Apple, I can say that whatever they were doing was affective. Because I don't just see an iPod ad and want it because of the ad. I am totally into the Apple "lifestyle" I understand that it is a creation of these ad agencies and even the company itself, but by doing so they gave some kind of a place to belong. As humans we al want to belong in a certain place, even if it's more than just one. That's how I feel with companies like Apple and BMW. Although I don't drive a BMW...yet, I do love the design and culture that the company creates. I can use these companies as a way of describing a part of me. Like I said before, they aren't a representation of where I belong, but they do tell people about my "taste".

The new factor that determines the success of an ad company and also challenges it is figuring out how to turn the products into a shared belief and way of life that the consumers of the products all have. The companies with these kind of ads have been the ones that have stuck around the longest and had the most success. It is important to create a culture around a certain company image so the ads companies present aren't lost in all the "clutter". Doing so creates a more complex culture and many cultures within it, but the idea that some of these cultures are ust creations of a company trying to sell you its product is a little bit concerning.

(I'm pretty sure I my thoughts here might be a bit confusing, but this topic is REALLy deep and gives me bit of an uneasy feeling... I guess I'll calm my thoughts with my iPod... hahaha)

Sunday, October 11, 2009

wow

The last couple of readings combined worked together to both confuse and teach me. There was A LOT covered in chapter 2 of Practices of Looking. A few things I understood and agreed with:
It is much easier to recognize ideologies in other cultures or times rather than seeing our own, because our own seem like common sense. (I wrote this from memory , therefore it may or may not be a direct quote from page 69). I totally see that though because we look at different eras in some of my classes and their aesthetics and we sometimes fail to notice ours. Things people believe in are tied to their time and place of existence and during that time and place they are just seen as "normal". Things we find normal now will change throughout time and generations later we will look back and place this generation's ideologies in texts and learn about them as we are now about the previous generations... phew!
I also agree with the "fact" that we take doses of different ideologies to create how we are. Rather than just one, because seeing just one negates the others which are also true. I see it like grayscale of ideologies rather than black or white system. :)