http://www.kibitzhomme.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dolce-gabbana.jpg

I think that this Dolce and Gabbana advertisement is extremely controversial, especially after discussing the meaning of the content in ads, this week in class. As you can see, Dolce and Gabbnana is promoting sexuality in their clothes. In addition to this, the viewer of the ad can assume that the woman is about to have sex with all of the men in the picture. The gazes of the men in the ad are direct at towards the highly sexualized woman. It is strange that the men are watching the woman being pinned down, as she looks away. Overall I think that everything that the ad implies indicates very disturbing conclusions from the fashion line. The fashion advertisements tend to make consumers buy into the myth that the brand will make the “buyer” sexy. These types of advertisements are extremely smart in marketing, because they market to both men and woman and work to make them feel the need to buy items of that particular brand.

Documenting the Mysterious

In class on Monday, I brought up this movie that I remembered as "From Conception to Birth," but which (after some Googling) is actually called "The Miracle of Life." The 1983 film, part of PBS' Nova series, was the first to document the progress of a new human from conception to birth.

My mom showed my sister and me this documentary when I was little, probably 7 or 8. I don't remember too many specifics, but I recall being mesmerized by it. Seeing something with my own eyes that was invisible, and that I understood poorly, was pretty amazing. Human reproduction is such a mystery for little kids (and even for adults!); I think it was a great movie for my sister and I to watch as children.

While it's definitely a groundbreaking and beautiful documentary, "The Miracle of Life" confuses me a little bit. Clearly, its achievement was good for the progress of scientific photography. And its images of un-seeable things like sperm fertilizing the egg, or the embryo becoming a fetus, are amazing. And it's a great educational tool to teach people about their own reproduction.

But what about the parents who agreed to document this? I don't know if they were getting paid, but it seems odd to allow a team of scientific photographers to document your pregnancy from the inside out - and to videotape the birth! To me, it would be too invasive. Isn't medical photography always kind of invasive though, in the most literal sense? Do you guys think you would agree to allow something so personal to be publicized and videotaped in the name of science?

Science- it just asks for your eyes

Each day, it is becoming more and more possible that we may be the last generation to ever believe in the current brand of Christianity. For thousands of years, human beings have assumed that the Earth was created solely for our benefit, and that we are the most important species on the planet. This attitude has contributed largely to the massive environmental crisis we find ourselves in today, and in turn, this crisis is showing us our relative unimportance. As we saw in our study of genre films, the debate between science and faith has become a cornerstone of our modern culture, and as any current viewers of the popular show "Lost" can tell you, faith is still winning. The mass majority of our country still professes to believe in "young earth" creationism, and media producers can't risk isolating that demographic.

However, in less mediated communication circles like the internet, the broad consensus is that science has already won the war. The rise in scientific imaging has made previously hard to understand concepts readily available to the masses. Today, while politicians hold strong to their "Christian" roots, even the Catholic church is revising their ideas of the genesis of human beings. New religions like Scientology have emerged to greet the rising challenges of empirically upholding old world religious teachings by embracing and integrating the power of scientific imaging into new propaganda. In light of the multitude of evidence suggesting the world is billions of years old, and that our existence on the planet will constitute less than a blip on the universe, it is difficult to make a case that Creationist Western religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism will have any relevance in the immediate future. Modern Christians answer these questions by ever bending the teachings of the bible, but in my opinion, they have already passed the breaking point.

Physiognomy-A Science?

When we were discussing in class about the notion that scientists once tried to scientifically map out specific characters in relation to the face structure of specific person, I was oddly surprised. In Chinese culture physiognomy is a not a science, it's a culture study. Similar to reading palms, we have specialists who read faces. Although a supersitition, Chinese people still hold some truth in reading physiognomy. For instance, Mao Zedong is believed by the Chinese people to bring to rule with an unearthly power because of the prominent black mole on his chin. Whether people came up with this theory before Chairman Mao wrote himself in the history books or it was his actions that enacted such a conclusion, present day Chinese people do belive a mole on the face is a good thing.

Since in Chinese media, actress Nancy Sit is known for bringing joy and happiness to her audience because her management sells not just her fun loving personality but the mole on her forhead, which equates her for happiness. This is however contradicting, as her marriage ended abruptly in her late twenties and instead of living the glamorous rich wife she was forced to play such a role in the many sitcoms she made after her divorce. It's interesting how much people believe in such supersititions but it was even more intriguing for me when it's viewed from the western side as a science. Now it calls to question, in regards to our high trust in science, it is really rational to put all our trust in it? Or are we like the Chinese people believing in science as if it was a supersition?

Dockers Are NOT For Girly Men

I found this ad yesterday and it made me think of Rande’s choices of ads to blog about masculinity for his final presentation. For me, I can see this as both the male and female “Got Milk?” ads in one, focusing on the macho, manliness of men and the passivity of women. It also could touch on the subject of sexual ambiguity that Briana discussed.

I do feel that Dockers did a great job trying to reach out to their target audience, middle class/blue collar working men. If you think about it, shows like Dirty Jobs, and this ad are probably successful due to this call to manhood. These hard working guys want to be manly again and be head of the house.

I myself don’t really like this advertisement because I’m an independent woman who can hold a door for myself and respect a man who wants a non-fat latte because if that’s what he likes then let him drink what he wants. The “little old ladies” part is kind of sweet, but at the same time, this advertisement has made it seem that the world has completely stopped moving since men have turned into these disco sissies. I read this ad as saying, “Have no fear women, the REAL men are returning to save you from these girly men who cannot take care of you the right way!” (Shout out to the anti-ads final presentation group!)

Political Fascination.

In class on Monday, we discussed how the Bodies exhibit turned the human body into a spectacle. We also briefly touched on the subject of the Mutter museum and its use of the human body as a spectacle.

While I do think that it is not okay to position the human body as a spectacle, there is also a part of me that thinks that this is unavoidable. The human body is spectacular. And whether or not we think that it is okay to put it on display, it is simply stunning when we are allowed to become voyeurs of our own existence, of our own bodies. The Bodies exhibit, allows us to see what we are unable to see from the outside. To give us a view of what we essentially are, and give us unprecedented access to the unknown. With that said I do think that The Bodies is not so much of a bad thing. I think that people are quick to label something that is so unheard of, so unprecedented with either love or disgust; there is no in between.

The Mutter Museum has long been one of these unprecedented exhibits. First opened in 1858, a doctor by the name of Thomas Dent Mütter opened the museum with his personal collection of unique materials. It has since grown to include a collection of shrunken heads, the “soap lady”, and the world’s tallest skeleton. With all those weird, unheard of exhibitions, people are often turned off by its grotesque displays. But it is not so much about the spectacle as it is about the fascination. It IS fascinating to see two headed babies and shrunken heads on display. However, there is always this stigma that perhaps this shouldn't be looked at, stared at for its scientific value because it may or may not be politically correct.

Moving forward, I believe that the hype and controversy associated with The Bodies exhibit will be over soon enough. Just like other controversial events, like abortion, stem cell research, and the Mutter Museum etc., there will always be a new affair, ready to stir both love and hate The Bodies exhibit is just another example of one of these “affairs.”

Technology as Media Spectacle

Our talk about science this week got me thinking about 60's space race as a media spectacle. The coverage of this race between the United States and Russia was the basis of the Cold War. It was a media war, a technological war, and whoever could land on the moon first was the ultimate superpower. The United States ended up landing first and the picture of the American Flag being implanted on the moon became one of the most iconic symbols of the US rise to power. The picture became truth and provided the empirical evidence of the technological power of the United States.

This created the idea that scientific power = world power. That is why although the United States does not make anything we still hold the most patents out of all the countries giving us the Biopower. Our 'big pharma' has the power and funding to develop vaccines that cure the world of their ailments. We can go into countries who cannot provide their own people with vaccines and cure them of their sickness, giving us an almost 'god-like' status in that we can control life and cure people. The idea of the 'miracle' that doctors perform everyday is revered in culture as seen through the countless shows, such as ER, Grey's Anatomy, House, and Nip/Tuck. The obsession/awe with technology and the body lends itself to be the perfect media spectacle because it is so far removed from most people's intellectual capacity that is shows our ultimate dependence on the government and big business to provide us with this technology.