Who Benefits from Negative Advertising?

As we discussed in class, Mac's anti-PC commercials denounce the latter by emphasizing problems associated with it, while promoting its own (mac's) 'effective' features. As most people would agree and numbers suggest, Apple greatly benefits from this negative ad campaign, but does it jeopardize or perhaps even compromise its reputation by doing so?

As studies in political advertising suggest, negative advertising can cause a backlash, provoking negative responses against the source of the campaign itself. So is it just possible that Apple may be risking by evoking unfavorable reactions in the PC users? Since PCs still sell better than Macs, could it mean that no one takes these anti-commercials seriously? Do people really purchase Mac computers for their functional, that is, inherent value pointed out in these ads or their fetishist status? More and more one can hear frustrated PC users criticizing these commercials.

When Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code premiered in one of the former Soviet Union countries, a small group of religious activists protested in front of the movie theater attracting the mass media. When the situation worsened and journalists started to investigate it closely, it turned out that the group consisted of hired activists who were paid by the movie theater company to protest against this film, thus making it intriguing and more interesting for the local population. This increased the box office numbers and showed how negative advertising may actually bring profit to the seemingly 'condemned' side.

What's the difference?

Hollister, Abercrombie and Fitch, and Ruehl are all own by the same company. If you walk into each one of these stores you will find one big difference and one big similarity. The one big difference is the price range of the clothing. Hollister's skinny jeans ranges from 40 to 50 dollars. Abercrombie and Fitch from 70 to 80 dollars. Lastly, Ruehl from 90 to 110 dollars. The one big similarity is all of their products look exactly the same; however, we, as consumers, believe buying a pair of skinny jeans at Abercrombie and Fitch is different from buying them at Hollister.

I personally like Abercrombie and Fitch out of the three brands. Why? Because I like their logo is the best, the little deer type thing. But I feel like I came to "like" the deer over the bird or the bulldog because of how Abercrombie and Fitch markets their brand to me. I feel like it's much more seen and advertised then the other two brands. For instance, when I drive into the city from Long Island, I always see this huge black and white billboard with a topless guy on it. Like we mentioned during class, everyone knows that, that's the Abercrombie and Fitch ad. However, do we all know what the Hollister or Ruehl ads look like? Do the company not care about the other two brands? I think it's more belong the lines are who comes to these stores and buy their products. In other words, I'm talking about our class system. Hollister is considered the cheapest out of the three and then Abercrombie and Fitch then Ruehl. Since our economy is based around the middle class, I feel like A and F is the one that's mostly advertised, because the middle class are the ones spending their money. The middle class is our consumer market today.

Lastly, I want to talk about our choice as consumers. I feel like individual choice is a very debatable topic. I know as a consumer I have a choice to go to Hollister vs. A and F, but do I really? Like I mentioned before, A and F has the most ads out there around us, so I feel like because I'm exposed to A and F the most I would eventually choose A and F over Hollister. Then was it really my choice to go into A and F over Hollister or was the companies plan all along. I mean from a consumers point of view, it would be better for me to go to Hollister because I can get the same product for a cheaper price, but through the ads and exposure to a specific brand, I feel like I get persuaded to think A and F is the "better" brand.

YouTube, Celebrities, and Politics

I’m an Internet surfer junkie, YouTube, Funny or Die, Stumble Upon, oh my! I love clicking and instantly being satisfied with humor, knowledge, or frustration because the browser won’t load quick enough. When I wake up in the morning, the first thing I do is check my e-mail, Facebook, and CNN for the headlines (it’s almost like a religious obligation for me). These practices of mine have also been helpful, because I feel like I am getting different opinions about what is going on in the world now, especially here in the United States and our government.

Celebrities, I have found in my opinion, are using their fame in a positive manner and trying to inform the public of issues our nation faces today. Here are a few examples: Prop 8 - The Musical & Paris Knows Best

But there is one that really caught my attention, and many others based on the comments made on YouTube. Here you will see Will Ferrell and a few of his famous friends take a satirical standpoint on the health care debate. I found it funny, and typical Will Ferrell-esq; but once I scrolled down to see some of the comments, I was kind of shocked. It was a sea of complaints against the video, dismissing support of the actual message; being that, universal health care is the way to go. I’m not going to say my personal view on this subject, but I would think that the target audience of this video would write comments like, “LOL love Will Ferrell,” or, “dis video iz da bomb.” Instead I found comments with legitimate statistics to prove the video wrong. It is refreshing to me to see how informed people are; I can’t believe the power YouTube has as a legitimate forum these days. A website I usually use only for a few laughs, or to watch Britain’s Got Talent, has become a place where even politics can have the “most watched” video of the day.

It's Just Not Aesthetically Pleasing!

When Heidi Klum tells you that the dress you created looks like the latest purchase in a prostitute's closet, you cower in fear. When Michael Kors exclaims that the dress you created makes your model look like Barefoot Appalachian Barbie, you run out of the room sobbing. And when NinaGarciaFashionDirectorofElleMagazine states that the dress you created is just not aesthetically pleasing, you know immediately that your career as a designer is over. Indefinitely. Herein lies the day-to-day life of a Project Runway contestant.

And we, as viewers of what seems to be one of the most veritable reality shows on television today (if such a thing even exists), take these opinions at face value. When Nina Garcia tells us that something is not aesthetically pleasing, we know for a fact that it is true. The opinion of this ill-tempered latina woman (who has never designed a thing in her life) holds tons more weight than ours do when it comes to the ins and outs of fashion design. The same goes for Heidi, queen of the short and shiny prostitute dress, and Michael, constant snorefest of the fashion week tents. So why have these three people been put in charge of making or breaking the careers of young designers across the country?

Someone, somewhere along the line, decided they had "good taste". That they know the difference between a good and bad design and that they can recognize quality construction over garbage. Sure, us viewers may sometimes agree with them that a dress looks like ass, but we often do not. And unfortunately, they're the judges sitting in front of the cameras. This higher class informs the rest of the country about what type of design is worthy.

Of course, you could argue that this is a reality show and producers have a heavy hand in who wins and who loses. But I'd like to take the high road and pretend the decisions are all up to our famous friends. The ones who have "great taste" and whose aesthetic tastes are of higher quality than our own. The ones that let little Christian Siriano loose on the rest of the world.

Fierce.

What is quality?

This week in class we discussed the topic that the upper class determines what quality is. For example, when it comes to fashion, what makes Chanel better than Gap? Because the hierarchical ladder factors into consumer branding, there is a social misconception of what quality really is. All of the major designer brands out there have one thing in common: pricing. The designers market themselves as “better” by making their goods extremely expensive and purchasable only to the upper class that has money. So when someone from the middle class can get a hold of one of these items, it is no wonder they feel the need to justify their outrageous splurging by saying, “But its better quality.”

Does buying something that costs more mean it is better? I think that there is a major misinterpretation of what quality really is. Designer labels have created such a high status to the public that they are able to market themselves as being more expensive and of higher quality because only the upper class can purchase the items on a regular basis. Although I do think that some designer brands do make true quality items, I also think that they have conjured a false image by allowing people to believe that quality equals price.

real vs. virtual

I've always been fascinated by the similarities between economics and communications - these two seemingly different subjects share many of the same theories, just stated in their own terms. For example, in class we discussed that tastes and aesthetics differ from person to person and even from group to group with the understanding that there is a conscious existence of a high class taste that we always defer to.

Within economics, there is this idea that objects have a perceived value based on how useful and scarce it is. To me that is very much like aesthetics and taste. We perceive a normative value or taste and everyone is in want of the aforementioned value/taste because it is useful in some way - perhaps a symbol of status or some other representation in the case of clothing. In addition, clothing is one of those necessities in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. By being a "high class" object the aesthetics of fashion are also not easily attainable by most people.

What's even more interesting, I think, is that society as a whole accepts certain values as factual and "real" in some cases, and rejects it in others. I've already said a bit about taste, but my biggest interest is in the systems of real world and virtual economies. Real world economies are something we are all familiar with, we use money to pay for necessities and extras every day. A virtual economy exists solely within a virtual or digital world - the best example is in Massively Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs, or just MMOs). MMOs like World of Warcraft function with entirely made up objects and currencies.

Here, the potential for crossover is astounding: real world money - dollars and cents can be traded for digital sprites representing some kind of functional object, perhaps a sword or a shield or even gold. If you've ever heard of Chinese gold farmers, what I'm saying probably isn't new to you. But for others it might seem like some completely bizarre practice: trading real world cold hard cash for some virtual gold, but whats bizarre to me is that we are within a hegemonic structure almost without concern or question. What makes a piece of green paper, or even a series of 0s and 1s on a server somewhere "real money," incomparable to a server storing what items your RPG character currently owns?

Graffiti: Vandalism or Art?

All the discussions we’ve been having about “taste” and “aesthetics” got me thinking about graffiti and what it could be classified as. Now, to prove to you my qualifications to make this classification, I will let you know that I have never studied any sort of art history, nor would I consider myself an art buff; I did complete a semester of Photography I, but these days, who hasn’t? So, with my lack of credentials, I wonder if graffiti is a high-class art form.

On dictionary.com, the word “art” is defined as, “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” With that in mind, that would be my first reason why graffiti would be considered an art form, because it is filled with expression, and more often than not, the graffiti is providing a message to be seen which gives it significance. Take a look at some of this London graffiti artist’s work here. Isn’t the point of any sort of art to provoke thought? This artist’s displays are open to questioning. Another point I would like to make is that museums are hosting exhibits with graffiti. I believe back in 2006, the Brooklyn museum had an exhibit dedicated to graffiti. Even in France, FoundationCartier is showing graffiti, which to me is a big deal, because in my eyes, France is an art capital especially because of the Louvre.

If graffiti is being shown in museums, I can’t help but think that it should be considered high culture. I think what bothers me the most is that not all art is considered to be cultural. Everyone experiences Art differently, and as lame as it sounds, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I don’t care what the upper class has to say about what would define high culture, as long as something moves us, that has to be culture at its finest.

Good and Evil Ideologies Garnered by Disney Characters

Like many young girls, I was obsessed with watching fairy tales unfold before my eyes. Since I grew up in China for the better half of my childhood, stories of Snow White and Cinderella were quite foreign to me. When I came back to America, I made my parents buy all the Disney made fairy tales on tape so I could watch them over and over again. I absorbed all the glitz, glamour and ugliness that Disney creators had determined that young girls should see. It was not until high school, when my friend lend me her Grim's fairy tale book did I realize the term "Princess" coined by Disney was highly manipulated.

First of all lets take at deeper look on the "evil" characters of the Princess stories. Snow White's stepmother is the evil witch, the antagonist; Cinderella's stepmother is the mastermind behind all her suffering; Little Mermaid, the sea witch is the evil sorceress that tempts her desires. One thing about Disney productions is that the good and the bad are always so apparent. The thread that ties all these antagonist together is the color to which their drawn. If you click for their pictures, you find a similar scale of purple hues with the evil characters' wardrobe (in some cases like the sea witch, her skin color is purple!). With the ideologies that media offers to the viewer, one would think black would be the perfect form of color to represent evil, but while black can come off as too stark, purple is just elusive enough to pull off mysterious and unknown, thus dangerous (uh oh NYU watch out). Also the animalistic features of the evil characters are quite striking. The evil witch resembles a vulture when she completes her transformation, which is told through the overshadow of two vultures glaring at her while she walks to give Snow White the poison apple. The sea witch is so apparent in her animalistic features as her tentacles slither to and fro when she speaks to the innocent mermaid; an image of Medusa and her mane of wriggling snakes. Cinderella's stepmother looks the least animalistic of all, but her cold stare can give Medusa a run for her money. It's interesting that evil characters can simply be anybody and can look as outer worldly captivating as she wants or horribly grotesque, while the Princesses, according to Disney is set by specific conventions. Conventions that perhaps little girls model and older girls critique.

       In an article by journalist Jessalyn Keller, she explains the theory of "Princess Phenomenon" When you watch commercials for Disney vacations, the image of little girls dancing with either Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel and others never gets old. In fact they seem to have packaged all the princesses into a neat nintendo game. Despite the distortion of reality (a $750 Disney trip will not get guarantee you a dance with the princess) Keller goes into an interesting analysis of The Princesses. The image of The Princesses include those princess with pale skin, except for Jasmine from Alladin. Jasmine can be a part of this elite princess club despite her skin color because her character parallels Snow White, Cinderella, Arielle and Sleeping beauty; they encompass all the woman that need saving from a prince. Interestingly enough the relationship then becomes a true princess is one that has to have a prince come to her rescue, without this male hero she is a distorted princess. Contrasting these princesses to more in depth characters, like Mulan and Pochahontas, not only are their skin color different (actually Mulan was quite pale) but they were the heroines of the story, without the male character they would still win the wars. It's interesting that in class when we were talking about the predetermined yet shifting position of feminism, many of the same components what a high class female should act and look like, comparing to the low class females who despite do sit in high positions (their were two queens) are simply evil in disguise because they plan and scheme and have no male companion, unlike the princes of the princesses. It's true that more recent Disney productions have varying females roles, which describes the slow shifting of ideologies of what a good female should be, but it is quite minimal. Shifting of ideologies do require time since the predetermined condition of a princess has been so embedded in the viewers minds.

 

      One thing that's even more interesting is that Keller mentions that Japanese animation gives princesses a different role compared to the princesses of Disney. While it is true, that female heroines of American praised animation, like Spirited Away, builds females roles with more layers, their general production of princess related stories always goes back to the same conventions that Disney has upheld so well. In China, I didn't watch Disney princesses but I did watch Moon princesses, Sailormoon. She had blonde hair and big blue eyes (Cinderella?). Although she fought of evil everyday, her prince disguised in a mask would save her every time she finds herself failing, which is every time. Also anime characters, the female is also blonde and gorgeous and usually a damsel that needs saving. I don't know if Japanese animation borrowed from Disney conventions or if it's the other way around but growing up watching such mediated feminine education, I couldn't help myself but to go out and get a puffy pink dress and find a prince to save my day. (Just kidding =D)

American Apparel Mania Sweeping the Nation!

I expressed my frustration in class, but I’m going to take this opportunity to elaborate on my frustration. Why is the new fad that appears to have swept the nation related to being “different.” This to me seems like a contradiction in itself. At first, all the people who got into the new trend appeared to be in the minority, they were dressing in mostly cotton, spandex, body suits and tights so bright you can spot them from a mile away. Was it a matter of taste, as we discussed in class, that sparked everyone else to follow? Or was it the aggressive and very well marketed ad campaigns that American Apparel wisely executed within major U.S. cities? In terms of taste, it’s difficult for me to see how this brand can appeal to so many people; bell bottoms and fleece jackets, I understand. But an all spandex outfit, I don’t. I must admit, the clothing is not ugly, however, for the price you’re paying to be so “stylish” you’re coping out on the quality. The same applies for Urban Outfitters. Both stores have the same concept in mind, making truly simple clothing appear to be much more valuable than it actually is.
Meanwhile, it seems as if American Apparel has gotten a bit ahead of itself. I personally had no idea what American Apparel was until I moved into the city full time, making me think the brand really only blew up in the last 2-3 years. However, they took their great success and used it as motivation to sell as much as humanly possible; American Apparel is the new Starbucks, one on every corner! What they couldn’t predict, over at headquarters, was how the recession would factor into their pricey clothing line. Check this article out: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9AFSUM01.htm , to get an idea of what I’m talking about.
Also, American Apparel is known, as I said, for their provocative ads and billboards. However disturbing some may find these ads, they really do meet their goal in leading people to their stores. So maybe in this case, taste has little to do with this fad at all. It seems more logical that people would spend their money wisely, especially during such tough economic times, and invest in longer lasting, while still fashionable, clothing rather than follow the trend of “trying to be different” by having an entire wardrobe from the same store.

Is it Really Made Better? Fine Taste's Social Construction

             An appreciation for expensive clothing, and a closest which runs parallel to it, calls for a specific phrase which we have all murmured. As an individual passionately drawn to racks of Alice and Olivia and Dianne Von Furstenberg clothing, I too have let this common phrase pass my lips anytime I feel the need to justify my clothing addiction. “It is just made better.” It, of course, being any highly price and highly marked up merchandise, which I have just spent my money on. This phrase was even said during this week’s class. Why buy designer jeans as opposed to a cheaper variation of perhaps the exact same pattern? Because they are just made better. My argument however, is that these designer pieces are not. It is, instead, I believe that the upper class does decide what is “fine taste,” and the masses justify their succumbing with the aforementioned idiom. 

            Last summer I had ventured to Bloomingdales in order to purchase a Marc Jacobs dress that had caught my eye. I justified the purchase, of course, by commenting that the price was worth every penny because of its fine quality. However, when the entire dress fell apart after one wear (a wear that did not consist of great force on the dress in any excess) and I brought it back to the store, I was shocked. I was told that nearly all silk dresses from Marc Jacobs have the tendency to disintegrate, falling apart at the seams, after only one wear. Why on earth are the masses buying Marc Jacobs, with its high price tag, if it has the tendency to fall apart? And why on earth, after this experience, have I, myself, continued to purchase Marc Jacobs clothing? 

            Fine taste is absolutely something socially constructed by the elite. It has become, however, so routine that we subconsciously justify our expenditures for not-so-worth-it clothing. 

Collapse into Starbucks

This week's class discussion about meanings and interpretations that viewers make reminded me of a very controversial Starbucks ad that came out in the summer of 2002. The poster above, was meant to promote new Tazo Ice Blended Tea, but instead it created a social disturbance. If you look carefully, the image imitates the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The two beverages are sitting next to each other as the dragonfly flies directly towards them. However, the punctum of this picture is hidden within the caption. The key word Collapse is what makes this otherwise pretty summery picture depicting cool drinks, grass and butterflies, shocking.

While, many would never recognize the negative connotation of this ad ("Some images strongly interpellate viewers, some do not" Practices of Looking (pg 50)), its decryption exemplifies a typical case where the three key elements to the production of meaning are collectively utilized. While the codes and conventions alone - included in this image - would not necessarily produce the meaning, the viewers with particular previous experiences and social backgrounds identified the context in which this ad was presented, and therefore, made the corresponding meaning. As it is stated in our textbook, "for viewer interpellation by an image to be effective, the viewer must implicitly understand himself or herself as being a member of a social group that shares codes and conventions through which the image becomes meaningful." (pg 50) If this ad was spread for example, in Finland or Zimbabwe, the probability of its decryption would have been much lower. Keep in mind also, that this ad came out after the 9/11 attacks, not before, in which case the punctum, codes and convention as well as the context would have carried different meanings.

Despite the number of clues suggesting the cruelty of this ad, one may still think it was an unfortunate coincidence. Perhaps, the intention of Starbucks was not 'capitalizing on the misfortunes of others', as it was widely accused of intending. The excerpt of the Starbucks statement regarding this issue is as follows: ... "the overall concept of the poster was to create a somewhat magical place using bright colors and fun, whimsical elements such as palm, trees, dragonflies, butterflies and pinwheels. The headline 'Collapse into cool, Try a new Tazo Citrus with tangerine, orange and lime' was meant to conjure up feelings of cooling off on a hot summer day. " (Notice how they composed this explanatory statement in a way that it still promotes the drinks.)

But if, on the other hand, the negative connotation in this ad was intentional, then it presents itself to me as counterintuitive. As I was writing about this poster, I could not help but sneak into Chapter 7 and read the Envy, Desire and Belonging section, where it is stated that, "advertising functions largely to create consumer relationships to brands and to establish brands as familiar, essential, even lovable." (pg 276) I particularly want to underline the last word, 'lovable', and connect it to the Starbucks ad example. Basically, the question that comes to my mind is: What were they thinking? If their ad was intentional, then they definitely considered the risky consequences it could bring, however they still spread it. Maybe it is an advertising technique that is currently unknown to me, but for now the negative results that it created remain evident.

The source: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cool.asp

Is Good "Taste" Succesful?

In this week’s discussion we talked about good “taste” and how it is related to the higher social class in history. It got me thinking, because the higher social class is usually associated with more money, would films that are considered in good “taste” be successful at the box office? In order to investigate this I had to think about the Academy Awards, the most prestigious motion picture award show in the world. Usually the 5 main films that are nominated for Best Picture are considered to be the most esteemed. Anyone who has seen and enjoyed the best picture nominees is usually seen as having good “taste” in films. So if these films are associated with the higher class technically they should also be associated with box office success. Unfortunately, this is most of the time not the case.
Take the year 2006 for instance, the five films that were nominated for best picture all had an incredible script, director, and cast. However, their financial success was somewhat questionable when compared to other films of the year not associated with good “taste.” Out of the five films nominated, “Munich” ($47,379,090), “Capote” ($28,337,516), “Good Night and Good Luck” ($31,501,218), “Brokeback Mountain” ($82,970,165), and “Crash” ($54,557,348), not one made it over the 100 million dollar mark in the box office. And it is also important to know that the majority of their box office dollars came in after they were nominated for an Academy Award. In comparison, a year later the film “Transformers” to which most critics and high class audiences found to be in bad “taste” ranked in over 300 million dollars in the box office. Overall I found this interesting that while in art the most prestigious pieces that are portrayed in good “taste” are usually the most valuable and expensive pieces. While in film although there is a high respect for Academy Award nominated films, the ones that become most successful are not critically acclaimed or sometimes even viewed as in bad “taste.”

The New All-American Family

1984 was a year full of events; the controversial Summer Olympics when the Soviet Union withdrew, the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandi, and the introduction of the user-friendly Macintosh personal computer by Apple. Though there were many breakthroughs occurring at the time, the country was taken by surprise by one of the most unexpected television shows in history—The Cosby Show.

Before The Cosby Show, America was used to television shows with successful characters to be filled white individuals. However, The Cosby Show broke those barriers of ideology in mainstream television media when the show depicted an upper-middle class African-American family with the father, Cliff being a successful obstetrician and Clair depicted as a loving mother and lawyer who seemed to be able to do it all. The Cosby Show was met with a lot of speculation and hesitation as people would ask, Is this story on the show actually a reality? The ideologies of many Americans, including blacks was that the plot was most definitely fiction and unattainable in the black community. Those ideologies of the public became the driving force of the show, as Bill Cosby’s aim was to show America that a successful black family with sophistication and morals was not as rare as everyone thought.

The success of The Cosby Show ultimately showed that the barriers the show once faced were now broken down. Now, white families weren’t the only ones who could be successful individuals on television. The show’s popularity and groundbreaking plot paved the way for more shows with successful minority families, like The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and closer to today’s time, The George Lopez Show. Both shows credit The Cosby Show for its efforts in breaking the silence for minorities, showing that they too can be successful individuals who can have it all. In media, only one historical moment is needed in order to change years of thinking among the general public. Thank goodness for Cliff and those flamboyant sweaters.

No, seriously. WHAT are you wearing?

Taste is a tricky thing. In the chapter “Viewers Make Meaning,” taste is said to “depend on one’s class, cultural background, and other aspects of identity.” Most would agree that taste is determined by the higher class, which, in contrast, dictates what it means to be of a lower status. (This stems from the Marxist thought that the bourgeoisie dominate the means of production, hence giving them the power to rule over the proletariat class.) In more contemporary terms, if you own a Van Gogh, odds are you’re damn rich and therefore have “more culture” than the average Jane Doe who owns a mere portrait of a vase of flowers. There is a strong correlation between culture and education, which is a product of affluence. That might sound unfair, but it is necessary to make these distinctions in order to classify art.
Is that still the case though? Contemporary society has now blurred the distinction between taste and culture – that is to say, you do not have to own a Van Gogh to be considered “of high culture.”
Taste, as we all know, is socially constructed, like most things in this world. While back then, the trendsetters of taste may have been the pompous opera goers and classical music-listeners, now we have come to a new definition of what it means to be “of high culture” (said with a British accent).
Celebrities. They are famous and successful, and surely those are admirable traits. Hence, we must follow them. WHY do we buy magazines like Cosmopolitan or Allure? Because we want to know what (or rather, WHO) Blake Lively is wearing.
Let’s see. What IS she wearing?
Really? A plain red top folded in places that I could have personally assembled with my own bed sheets?
No no, but it’s VERSACE.
Ah, now it makes a difference.
I’ll say again, taste is socially constructed. These celebrities add value to the name “Versace” by wearing them. Why? Because we also want to BE Blake Lively. Maybe, if we own that dress, we too can star in our own hit TV series and be around very, very attractive males.
The hierarchies of taste are defined as when “subculture styles gain taste and cultural capital and in turn become valuable to monied classes.”
“Subculture” here refers to the fad of the “upper east sider.” The Gossip Girls marketed it, now we want it. Style becomes commodity because of a culture that everyone wants to be a part of.
But as I said, taste is a funny thing. It shifts, it changes. Heck, you don’t even have to own a Versace dress to be considered part of the fad.
Buy one of those plain ratty tees at American Apparel. They’re loose, they’re unflattering, they’re IN. Get one, and you’re automatically on the A-list, up there with Blake and the gang, because THEY seem to like it, and THEY’RE of high status.
I’m not pointing fingers here, because the fact is, I own one. It’s comfortable is all I have to say. In retrospect, however – man, did I really spend thirty dollars on a shirt I could get off Chinatown?
Point of my argument is, taste can mean a lot of things, depending on place and time. Back then maybe it meant owning a Van Gogh. Now, for some, it's all about the Versace. Others, oversized v-neck t-shirts.
The media really is sneaky, creating value out of nothing.

Trendy Eating.

Whole wheat bread, organic yogurt, baby spinach, cage free eggs, antibiotic-free herb turkey and preservative free chicken sausage. 25 minute line, $13 bill.

This describes a typical Monday night trip to the 14th street Trader Joe’s. I must admit that I have recently become a Trader Joe’s and healthy food enthusiast. However, somewhere on my journey to become more health conscious, or maybe during my nearly 25 minutes in line, I have noticed something. This week in class we discussed the process of hegemony and how ruling class ideology can trickle down and infiltrate down through the rankings of society. While standing in line I cannot help to think that perhaps I too have been subjected to the influence of the ruling class.

Healthy eating and lifestyle is something that has undoubtedly been on the rise. And while many attribute this sudden change to the rapid rise of obesity and the desire to get healthy, I think that this epidemic can be accredited to something or someone else. Yes, I do believe that people genuinely want to get healthy and subsequently live longer, however, I believe the bigger motivation for this has come from the pressure and newest fad of the “ruling class.”

With the opening of grocery stores such as Whole Foods, the opportunity for healthy eating has seemingly been made readily available for everyone. Whole foods, nicknamed in the New York Times “whole paycheck” is notoriously known for its high prices and therefore limits the types of customers that come through its doors. Most of these customers could be considered in the “ruling class” and consequently set the tone in the early 2000’s that would ultimately become today a health food mania.

This trend propelled by the ruling class happens to be a positive one, the ruling class has set the standard that of fit, healthy, and more importantly SLIM as one of the ways to separate the lower classes from the higher classes. And despite this trend being one of the more positive ones it does indeed show that the ruling class does promote their ideology over the lower, less powerful classes, myself included. So as I stand in line at Trader Joe’s, healthy food in toe, I must realize that everyone here has made the choice to become more fit and healthy, but at the expense of once again being influenced and overruled by the dominant ruling class.

Are we really that unique?

Yesterday in class, we were talking about the idea of fashion and how it relates to our societal structure. Living in New York, we are exposed to all types of styles, but I found it very, very hard to find one person who was completely removed from any accepted norms when it came to fashion. We all tend to fit a certain mold, and by trying to be unique, we end up looking like another group of people. There are institutions that dictate what is fashionably right or wrong, and there are counter institutions that urge us to go against the idea of right and wrong. But this ties into the way how producers try to target "you." While dressing in a certain way, we would all like to think that we have our own twist on things, which to some extent we do. I was watching tv the other day and a target commercial came on. It portrayed three well dressed women, one in her 20s, on in her 30s, and one in her 40s. The commercial went on to say that these three women had found their own sense of themselves, and recession prices. They were confident, and strutted down the streets on New York City. People around them would just stare, and no one dressed as good as they did. Then my mind wandered straight to the tv show, Sex in the City. In this show, there are four women who are sassy, confident, constantly dealing with guy problems, and are experts in fashion. Girls and women around the left that show with a couple of words on their minds: Manolo Blanik, Jimmy Choo, Chanel. The idea that these women could walk down the street and have heads turning because of their "unique and chic" sense of style is what appeals to women around the world. We want to feel that at some level we can reach that point. So we go to the stores and buy knock of Jimmy Choos and not eat for a month to save enough money to buy really tiny Louis Vuitton bag. And Target nailed that desire in their ad. For less money, you can be different too! Target wants women to talk to their friends like this: "Remember that summer dress that Carrie Bradshaw wore in season 5 episode 6? Well I got a dress that looks just like that." Target encapsulated this idea to be trendy and cutting edge, playing into the feeling of wanting to be "unique." I'm not saying that people dont have personalities when it comes to fashion, but big corporations like Target or Olay know that there is a majority of women out there who tend to be "different" in the same way.

The rise and fall of Abercrombie

During last Wednesday's class discussion on hegemony, it seemed that a lot of the examples raised in class were fashion based. As I listened to the discussion and tried to keep up with the references to designer labels, my bias against all things fashion began to come out. I left class feeling like any amount of time discussing fashion and its relevancy in our lives was time ill spent. As I have thought more about the concept of hegemony and looked for examples in my life and in popular culture to demonstrate it, I began to realize that fashion has indeed played a large part in my life, and that it was foolish for me to think it did not matter.

Today, I read an article about how clothing company Abercrombie and Fitch is being sued for religious discrimination. That article lead me to another about Abercrombie's abysmal sales throughout the recession. What piqued my interest in these stories was that in middle school and early high school wearing A&F clothing was really important to me, despite the fact that I could rarely afford them. At the time wearing a too-tight shirt that said "Abercrombie" on it had a lot to do with how I felt others perceived me. This is exactly why fashion, or more precisely labels, are such a great example of hegemony. Somehow the thought was put into my brain that wearing cheap clothes that I paid a lot of money for made me cool.

I would argue that Abercrombie was able to tell middle schoolers its brand was cool by crafting an "authentic" prep look, filling its stores and catalogs with skinny, white people who just seemed cool, and by making their clothes expensive regardless of the fact that you bought them in a mall. Despite the branding and the hegemony that Abercrombie has masterfully crafted, it is backfiring. And since I was always too poor to buy their clothes when I was younger, I have to admit I'm enjoying watching their fall.

As James' post from last week mentioned, their teen chain Hollister is simply out of touch with what is going on around them. And as this Time article points out the recession is playing a big part in teens' decisions to reject the hegemony of Abercrombie. So are their declining sales an indicator of counter-hegemony? I'd like to believe so. Because if it is, there will inevitably be fewer 11 year old girls who think that the only way to look cool is by buying 30 dollar tee shirts and a 90 dollar pair of jeans. Here's hoping the new trend in middle school fashions will be wearing whatever your mother can afford.

Streetstyle Blogs and the Hegemony of Style

I'm sure you've all noticed the preponderance of streetstyle blogs these days. Sites like The Sartorialist, Garance Doré, and Face Hunter all showcase street fashion from around the world; we can see what girls and guys are wearing in Helsinki, Melbourne, Stockholm, London, Paris, wherever these photographers go. The blogs feature young, beautiful people sporting fresh, innovative personal style. If the subjects aren't young and gorgeous, they're older and either adorably eccentric or wearing some kind of vintage design.

These blogs are fun for a number of reasons - the photography is good, the style is fresh, it's interesting to see what real people are wearing. But the most interesting effect they've had is changing who decides what's in in the fashion industry. No longer do we depend on runway shows to dictate what we're wearing - now we're taking inspiration from real people like ourselves (except hotter, obvi).  

In the textbook, we read about taste and how the definition of "good taste" is set by the higher social classes. Transfer this idea to fashion. In the past, what was considered trendy or fashionable wasn't up to us. It was up to fashion editors (see: Anna Wintour) to decide what made it into their magazines and, by extension, what made it onto the shelves. We've all been wearing watered-down, diluted versions of runway looks. Remember our little Devil Wears Prada tangent the other day?

What's cool about the rise of streetstyle blogs, which I hadn't even heard of until a couple years ago, is that they're a great example of counterhegemony. People around the world are challenging the taste hegemony of the fashion industry, and the results can be stunning and inspiring. It's like the street is a DIY runway. And it allows us to break the cycle of taking cues from higher-ups. Now, we can be inspired by equals. Do you guys think sites like the Sartorialist have a real effect on what people pay attention to vis-à-vis fashion?

From Gossip Girl to van Gogh

I used to be obsessed with the Gossip Girl books when I was in high school. I fell in love with the characters- with Dan, the quiet, skinny, loser who was a good writer, with Vanessa, the bald, chubby girl, with Rufus, the overweight and always un-showered father, and with Jenny, the big-breasted small girl, along with all the rest of them. I started watching the actual television show (based on the books) last year. I was agitated they had drastically changed some of my favorite characters. Jenny is tall, thin and although only 15 or 16 looked more like 22. Rufus is probably the most attractive middle-aged man I have ever seen. Vanessa is the opposite of bald with black, wavy and beautiful hair, and although she comes from the lower class it looks like every outfit she wears on the show is at least $1,000. And Dan, although still portrayed as a bit of a loser, is quite attractive and fashionable.

Although these character changes annoyed me I still enjoyed the show. I was among the target audience and fell right into the trap. It wasn’t until the other day in class that I realized what all of these character changes actually meant. Of course I knew they had made the characters more attractive and it seemed to me that they did this to appeal to the shallow viewers of modern America; but it does mean more on an even deeper level. We discussed Marx and Engels and their theory about the ruling class controlling society. How the upper class sets the styles, tastes and trends in society’s culture. This hegemony, or the power one social group holds over another, is accurately portrayed in Gossip Girl. All of the characters, even the poor ones, are dressed in the most up-to-date fashion. Their hair is perfect, their teeth are perfect, and it is pretty rare to find a main character who isn’t white, or at least extremely whitewashed. All of these physical traits are what is expected in our culture. If you want to be hip and cool (which is what Gossip Girl is in our society) then you have to dress and act the way these people do. Wear their rich clothes, talk their rich talk and walk their rich walk.

Yesterday in class I was very thrown off by the two paintings of sunflower pictures. Yes, they were the same thing. But one did mean more to me than the other. I had visited the places Van Gogh used to paint and so his paintings have meant more to me in the past. Yet I’m not going to ignore the fact that yes his paintings did become famous for a reason, besides his talent he also had help from those with money. Although he died poor, his work was loved by many wealthy Parisians. Money makes things faster, easier, more known. And so it was a mix of his talent along with his fortune that his work became famous. This is yet another example of something changing contexts and meaning over time. Van Gogh has now become a label, a brand, a name which everyone wants to have on their coffee mugs. He painted what he saw, his life, his surroundings. People took these images and changed their meanings over time. I definitely see Marx and Engel’s point. Having money, having power, having influence all do in turn help shape society, culture and history.

Those aren't cool enough

I'm a huge fan of celebrity fashion blogs. Many of these blogs provide the readers with what and who are wearing the newest "it" items, everything from handbags to T-shirts. I personally love going to these websites to see what my favorite celebrities are enjoying and buying. The blogs lets me live a part of my imaginary life. I guess it's kind of living vicariously through the celebrities lives, wishing I was in there position, wishing I was wearing those acid washed jeans by Jet and not the knockoffs I got at Urban Outfitters. I feel like many times because of what the media tells me and shows me I fall into this trap of desiring something that I would've totally disregarded before. For example, if a celebrity I admire and love didn't wear a specific brand name flip flops, I wouldn't have known those brand of flip flops even exist;however, because she did, now the ones I got from old navy doesn't look as good as the ones she is wearing around. It's ridiculous how the media and our culture molds me to think in a way that a pair of black flip flops can look so different because of who is or isn't wearing them. All of these thoughts I feel ties back to the idea we discussed during call about how the upper class decides where the "bar" stands. The set the taste of what's good and what's bad. Like the museums and the education, celebrities decide what's hot and what's not in the fashion industry today. And as a vulnerable and envious college student, I'll fall in love and wish I would be able to purchase those exact same looking black flip flops I could've bought at old navy for more then double the price and still feel like I haven't wasted a single penny. It's crazy how we want to deny this "bar" or standard of "good taste" and believe that we are following our own instincts and have an opinion about our own taste, but at the same time we fall for all these little details. Even with the knowledge of how the media is trying to shape us and mold us in a certain way, we still fall for it. And why did any one pick the upper class to decide what the "bar" was going to be like from the beginning? Why couldn't it be the middle class or the working class? Why can't we just let go of that mindset and throw away the standard that the upper class set for us?

'Drop Dead Thin'

On Tuesday I was skimming the science section of the New York Times, not expecting to anything to catch my interest, however, a review on a new television series “Drop Dead Diva” caught my attention. The premises of the series is a thin supermodel, Deb, gets trapped the body of an average, plain-looking lawyer, Jane. The conflict centers on Deb’s struggle to accept her new plus size figure and inability to lose weight no matter how hard she tries. Although in the article the creator of the series, Josh Berman, states his intentions are “to try to be nonjudgmental about weight and focus on issues of self-esteem and identity”, my first instinct is the very basis of the story promotes the dominant ideology that being thin is more desirable. Yet, the more I considered the influx of television shows, such as ‘The Biggest Loser’, ‘Ugly Betty’, and ‘More To Love’, which feature overweight people, I begin to question whether the media is making a spectacle of them or the possibility that the shows are a counter hegemonic movement in the process.

The first thing that I noticed is the difference how overweight people are treated in, comedy shows, reality television shows and new scripted shows. The reality shows, ‘The Biggest Loser’ and ‘More To Love’, obviously promote the idea that being thinner is more ideal, as the contestants try tirelessly to lose weight or find it difficult to find love. It gets worse in comedy shows as overweight comedians make fun of themselves and generally take on roles that portray them as unintelligent clowns. On the other hand, I’ve noticed in recent years, starting with the advent of ‘Ugly Betty’, that the media is portraying overweight people in a new light. After the success of ‘Ugly Betty’, there began an influx of media showing real women promoting self-acceptance. Examples of this are Dove’s real beauty campaign using real women, not

models and magazines, such as French Elle and Glamour, showing models without any touch-ups or airbrushing. Could these new movements within media be a small counter-hegemonic movement in the making? It is possible, however at the moment it seems more of a hope than a reality. These movements take time, so for now the dominant ideal that “thin is in” still prevails.

Already winners still have to fight for the spotlight...

This week there was a major event happening in the sports world; not Jeter making history or another football player getting into some kind of scandal. If you don't know which major event I am talking about or don't recognize the guy in the picture, then you will have no problem understanding my point. The guy in the picture is a 20 year old Tennis player (one of the youngest male to win the U.S. open) who happens to have made history this monday Sept 14. Juan Martin Del Potro an Argentinian native, defeated the number one Tennis player, a history maker himself, Roger Federer; now i bet that name sounds more familiar. Del Potro and Federer met each other face to face on what Tennis fanatics would consider a killer match that lasted a little over 4 hours, the kind where both players left their hearts on the court and either one deserved to win.

What i am about to single out from this incredible match probably flew by through many who would not think this was a big deal, but i do so bring this up since i seem to have notice a pattern and an issue that has been bothering me but this is what i would like to think as "the icing on the cake."

After the match, which was broadcasted on CBS, the award ceremony began with a few words from the "loser" (no offense to the great Mr. Federer.) Then the chairman who was awarding the players as well as doing the reporting, who was not from a particular network but from the U.S. Open Tennis association. Then came a few words from the president of the association. Finally, a "few" words by the winner, Del Potro. I would like to point out that this is before receiving any trophies or gifts. Del Potro, with little to almost no English did not fail to give thanks and let everyone know who was watching him how happy and appreciative he was with his supporters. When he was done, he asked the reporter on what seem to be a side comment, if he could say a few words in spanish; the reported answered, "no, we don't have time anymore" (quite enough to be a side note but any media critic or just anyone who was really paying attention would notice.) The reporter turn to the other side and introduced the representative from Lexus who was giving Del Potro a set of keys to his new car. Then came 2 more people; this whole time Del Potro kept insisting to the reported if he could say something in spanish; he finally gave in and said "ok but quickly because we ran out of time."

If you haven't realized by now the point that i am trying to make, then you are probably one of those who think that the issue of race is no longer an issue to waste time on. Why is it that the winner of the match had less air time and less speaking time? If a match has already exceed the scheduled time, does it hurt the network that much more to go over a couple of more minutes? Wouldn't it hurt them more if this were to get blown out of porpotion and gave them bad ratings instead?

To offer even more support to the issue i am trying to raise, there is also another great example and an event to look into this Saturday, Sept 19. Nascar racing, next to football the sport that brings in more cash than any other. Tomorrow, a Colombian driver Juan Pable Montoya, will be taking off the Poll position, (first in line to take off and a position to which there is a qualifying race for.) Montoya is a previous Formula One race driver, he won a few titles racing for names such as McLaren and BMW. Since Formula 1 racing is more international than Nascar, there was no obvious race issues and instead they really just focused more on who the best really was. Ever since Montoya has been with Nascar, his name is one to have to look for, since they are not talking about him throughout the whole race like they are with the big American names, even if sometimes they are not in front. Why do American networks not give as much importance to global, cultural enhancing knowledge (not just this specific example i'm talking about but many others) of this real hard working, talented people who had to fight so hard to get to where they are now, but they do to those who are just attention seekers?

Epically Awkward

SoCal meets SoHo. Sandy beach meets urban jungle. Clothes made for suburban teenagers meets adults who couldn't care less. In July 2009, the powers that be decided to place a store for their infamous Hollister brand at the front gate of the trendiest place on Earth. And this Hollister Epic, quickly christened "epically awkward" by the NY Mag, does not disappoint. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. This post isn't concerned with the deafening music, self-made darkness, or overwhelming odor of cheap cologne emanating from the building's interior. Our focus is simply on who is paid to stand outside the entrance.

Two beautiful men grace the corner of Broadway and Houston, wearing nothing but swim trunks and a pair of flip-flops. Two beautiful men who have abs that look like you can grate cheese on them. These two beautiful men are really what makes you notice that Hollister was even allowed to have a SoHo building address in the first place. But as you pass you may or may not ask yourself: WHY DOES A CLOTHING STORE HAVE NAKED MODELS OUTSIDE? WHY CAN I NOT SEE SOME OF THE MERCHANDISE ON THESE LIVING MANNEQUINS OF PERFECTION? And lo and behold, this is the quandary of Hollister's marketing.

Hollister is obsessed with bringing the "authenticity" of Southern California wherever it goes. You don't wear clothes on the beach, so the models outside the store wear bathing suits. Everyone that goes to the beach is physical perfection, so the models all have six-packs and jawlines that could cut a diamond. These naked guys represent what the brand wants you to see. Certainly nothing original, unique, or impressive, but a classic and timeless "surfer" look that should be the same wherever you go.

But are these living advertisements effective in the way that Hollister wants them to be? Simply put, no. Putting male perfection near a storefront is "epically awkward" no matter where the store is, but especially so in the middle of New York City. The "surfers" look so strange and out of place that it's painful just to walk past them on the way to campus. Like you want to go up and say "Listen man, I'm really sorry about all of this.. but could you put a shirt on, please? It's the middle of September and it's getting a little bit chilly. Not to mention that fake suntan lotion on your nose looks ridiculous." But you would really never say that because you're in SoHo and not a mall in the suburbs of New Jersey. Because you're too busy turning your head and pretending not to see them or their abs of steel. BECAUSE HALF NAKED MEN IN THE STREET IS JUST AWKWARD FOR EVERYONE.

So listen up, HCO. Everyone understands that the quintessential, authentic, and totally awesome surfer boys and girls wear your clothes. Your brand name is synonymous with summertime. It's really not necessary to embarrass your employees (or the customers) by having these guys stand in the street to beckon for store traffic. It'll be better for all of us this way.

We've all seen the video by now. Kanye storms the VMA stage and rudely interrupts poor Taylor Swift's moment in the sun, arguing on the behalf of Beyonce, who appears shocked and appalled to be at all associated with him. It's the kind of moment that consumers of online media dream about. It's endlessly watchable, it plays well in social situations, and even created it's own catch phrase.

Youtube is amazing for it's archival capabilities, but it's photos like the one above that appeal more personally to my media tastes. The turnaround time between the release of original content and it's subsequent degradation by the online community has become nothing short of astounding in the past five years. This photo was released on reddit.com a few short hours after Patrick Swayze's death, referencing an event that happened only 48 hours before that.

People who are not familiar with online communities would be shocked at how organized and highly motivated members can be. Even more surprising is that unlike the producers of the original content, the people who create these forgeries receive no compensation for their actions despite a few pats on the back from other internet users. When we discussed the "Mototov Man" article in class, I felt that we skipped over the most interesting part of the article: the reaction of the online community. Their support of Joy Garnett was an example of democracy in it's finest form. Her reproduction of Susan's photo extended far beyond a single painting when she requested help from a group of perfect strangers, whose endless reproductions exhibited a great deal of wit and artistic skill. These people are voting with their art, calling attention to issues that might otherwise have been swept under the rug. Do we as the future of the media industry hope to stifle this creativity in pursuit of our own agendas? If the original content fails to gather as much interest as the reproduction, is that not the failure of the original content? Do we want to see our internet revolution go the way of the 60's movement, or is technology going to finally set us free?

P.S.

Sekula said that photos act both “honorifically and repressively.” But, can a photo be both? In April of 2008 “role model” Miley Cyrus posed in a rather racy ad, flesh exposed and wrapped in the arms of an older man. That man? Her father.

            The repressive side is clear. Many were outraged at the sexuality, which was seemingly embedded into the Vanity Fair spread. Apparently incest is not on the top ten most moral things a Disney Star could represent, as critics opposed the clear sexual connotations of the photo. Sexualizing a current child star, appealing to children, seems like a sure way to end ones career. No?

In an age where infamy is celebrated (case in point, the notoriety of OJ Simpson after his arrest, Brittney Spears after her mental breakdown, and Lindsay Lohan after her “exhaustion”), Miley did not lose any sleep over the spread. Though at first outrage filled the streets, Miley only received more publicity after the scandalous photos were released, and followed suit with paparazzi shots of her nearly naked with older boys. Again, to much honorary acclaim.

With Sekula in mind, I think modernizing his statement would be to conclude that photos can now be, in fact, both honorary and repressive. If a photo says a thousand words, then Mileys says both disgrace and commodity. 

"It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to"

A few days before the start of this semester, I came across an article by a former NYU student and one of my favorite contemporary filmmakers, Jim Jarmusch. After reading our first assignments regarding the problem surrounding reproduction and copyright, I immediately decided to reflect on this article, which itself is a type of media, so it counts.

Jim presents five "codes" or guidelines for successful filmmaking. While all of them are equally useful and important to me - as a person considering becoming his colleague one day - for the purposes of our class discussions, I will only focus on his last advice. Here is the quote:

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard siad: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to."

Now, it's obvious that Jim must be aware of copyright rules and regulations, as well as the consequences of stealing someone's work. Therefore, I am a bit perplexed as to what kind of stealing he is really talking about. What is his definition of thievery? What I do know with certainty is that Jim never incorporates other's artwork in his films without permission. A good example is his brilliant selection of soundtracks, whether by Tom Waits, Wutang Clan, or Neil Young and Crazy Horse. In fact, Jim had a hard time acquiring the latter's consent to write the scores for Dead Man. So, it is obvious that Jim has respect for other's work, therefore, I think his definition of stealing is - incorporating certain invigorating elements from a particular work in one's own creation.

Borrowing concepts, ideas, notions, elements, details and 'ingredients' from previous works has always been a part of human nature. This is explicitly evident in religions, the development of evolving movements in music, literature and art, as well as the evolution of science. People always find inspiration in others' work. I think that the necessity to protect 'original' work emerged when people discovered the potential commercial benefit associated with it. The economic rights of a benefactor, that is. Therefore, the copyright law is arbitrary, especially the time limit of the protection from reproduction, which by the way, has been expanding. One may ask why it is "author's life plus seventy" (the quote from Practices of Looking, pg 204) and not say, eighty years. How is it determined? Why is it allowed to reproduce artwork after, but not before? All of this convinces me that these are the market driven decisions.

However, the copyright law only protects a particular presentation of an idea, instead of the idea itself. But what is the probability of two individuals on either sides of the world expressing their ideas in very similar ways, separately from one another? Why must one of them suffer if it occurred to him or her individually? The Medieval paintings of mother and child is a good example. However, people did not necessarily think of art as commodity during that period and therefore these problems were nonexistent. As Jim writes in his third rule, "The film is not being made to serve the budget". I think this was the mentality of earlier artists.

In conclusion, I think it's not too harmful to share one's artwork as long as it will be used to enhance another's. A good example of this is Andy Warhol's repertoire. While many would not consider scientific inventions as artwork, this kind of sharing is practiced in the world of science. Scientists discovering new things about nature constantly share their work, which is used (most of the time without any modifications) by others to move forward and progress for the benefit of humanity. I think that art deserves to be recognized as such progress as well.

P.S. If you are interested in reading the article refer to this website: http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/jim_jarmusch_2972/"

Set your lightsabers... to stun???

Our discussion on the reappropriation of the Molotov Man really pushed me into thinking about the underlying ideas of authenticity. More specifically, whether or not reappropriation and decontextualization (or even reproduction, slightly altered or not) in any way diminishes an "original."

While I did find artistic merit in Joy Garnett's process of decontexualizing, I don't believe that decontextualization can happen without knowing what that first context. Whatever that struggle could be, whether it's with the Somoza family in Nicaragua or with PepsiCo, it is vital to the picture's history. Garnett's own posing of that question pretty much aligns her with that viewpoint; the "rights to this man's struggle" is quite a clear reference to the context of the Molotov Man's image and her entry of blogger nmazca's question at the end makes it hard for me to believe she is defending her position soley on that intention as an artist.

That isn't to say, though, that I'm "siding" with Susan Meiselas. Authenticity and originality are pretty abstract terms with incredibly inconsistent and unclear definitions. In my (humble) opinon, there are very few "authentic" or "original" elements of culture: sampling, quoting, and vocalise are all integral parts of some really great music; I also thought the new Star Trek film was a great reappropriation of the 1960s series; even some "authentic" and characteristic elements of Chinese opera can be traced to other, foreign types of performance; and most written languages are influenced by previous modes of communication.

I find that nowadays, it's almost impossible to remain unaware of an image's history, of how it came to be as well as it's aura. Considering all that, I think we should be wary of what my History of Comm professor calls the "tyranny of context." That is, we are so preoccupied with searching for context that we may argue details while missing the much bigger picture.

The Che-ification of the Vampire

Vampires have been a popular icon in entertainment since Dracula first began appearing in movies in the 1920s. The appeal of the vampire in cinema and literature has always been the allure of an incredibly beautiful and sexual being that is at the same time a monster. With the recent success of the Twilight novels and movie, vampires have reemerged onto the pop culture landscape with a new persona and image.

Despite how ridiculous (and how unfaithful to accepted mythology) these new vampires are, they are becoming a real phenomena. As Che's image became ubiquitous his message became perverted and diluted. So too is the case of these "modern" vampires. The original established meanings and connotations associated with vampirism have been removed and replaced for a new audience. The Bela Lugosi-loving Goth girl has been replaced with the seen-every-Disney-movie teenager. To put it in terms of the Roland Barthes model; vampires are the signifier, youth and passion are the signified, and true love is the sign.

What was once a cultish symbol of danger, sexuality, passion and morbidity has transformed into a representation of teenage angst and true love. In an effort to understand these "newer and gentler" vampires I watched the Twilight movie and the pilot for the new CW show Vampire Diaries. Both are incredibly similar in tone, characters, and plot. The male leads are both "godlike" in their beauty and incredibly angsty vampires who attend high school as a cover. The female leads are equally as breathtaking and angsty as the men. Both characters spend the majority of their time on screen perfecting their pained expression look. As the story progresses it becomes clear that the vampire and the girl are in love and are meant for one another. Apparently, in both these stories, love is predestined, eternal, and never loses any of its intensity (just like in real life, kids!).

In order to turn Che into a commodity, all of the danger and moral ambiguity had to be removed from what he signified. Unfortunately-- but inevitably-- the same change in meaning has occurred with the vampire. In a culture where it is acceptable to wear a shirt with the face of a violent revolutionary on it in as an expression of one's rebellion, it really should come to no surprise that we now watch movies and TV shows about vampires because they are the new symbols of the "true love waits" movement. I suppose it is only a matter of time before zombies are the new symbols of conservatism in this country.

Back to basics

When I think of shrewd marketing, I certainly do not jump to Levi's. I think of companies like Apple, where they use the right tools and techniques to make the everyday Apple user feel high-tech, cool, and elitist (shhh).  But when I saw this Levi's ad, I mentally gave them a pat on the back.  I thought of the Arrow ad in the textbook (page 196) and the connection to authenticity, a "free-flowing signifier ... that is meant to indicate a style that is 'classic' or 'timeless.'"  We, as an aware culture, are so sick of the greed and luxury that our country is seeped in, and realize all the damage that is has done.  Looking at this Levi's ad evokes a sense of "authentic" patriotism that I can't really put a finger on.  They aren't shoving the American flag down our throat, but rather asking us to go back to our roots.  And while some people looking at this ad don't consider their roots to be American, they can identify with the need for simplicity.  The statement in the ad coupled with the girl running through the field gives us a small taste of whatever it is to be authentically American.  That "classic" and "timeless" sense of opportunity and hope is something that, especially as a cynical New Yorker, is hard to find in the psyche of many Americans.  Because this "authentic" idea isnt really authentic and original at all, it gives the viewers a sense of familiarity and a connection to our country that some of us might have not thought about for quite some time now.  Authenticity can sometime have negative connotations to it because it so hard to truly capture it, but Levi’s executes an un-authentic perspective on an authentic American ideal. Amid the mess that America is knee deep in, it's nice to take a second and feel good about being an American.  Even if it’s just for a second.