Gays for Entretainment

We have discussed most of the representations of sexual identities and gender in the media in class this week, i wanted to bring up a point not sure that has been mentioned; when i took a moment to wonder what other people thought about gays (excluding the open-mindness of NYC that people acquire once they have moved here) more specifically, those who are not exposed to the gay community on an everyday basis, i often saw them viewing the representations of gays on tv as mostly entretaining. This kind of entretainment is not particularly good but rather seen as comic; most shows that portray gay people, portray them with a certain flamboyant gayness that clearly spearates them, and allows an audience to classify them as "other". I often see people enjoying this shows because the character is so "gay" making him so funny. (Jack McFarland is so funny because he is so gayy!?).

I wanted to bring up a comparison between clowns and draq queenss; the reason why clowns are seen as entretaining characters is because clowns do not fit under the category of normal; this being that we do not usually see clowns walking around the streets. Everything about clowns is funny, their overtness, clumsyness, speech and tone of voice, how they carry themselves and a certain level of comfortness. Although this comparison may be on the other side of the spectrum, these characterisitcs can be related to drag queens gay people and the dominant ideaology society has of them. And i wonder if there is any relation between a clown and a Draq Queen in regards of some of their physcial aspects not being too far from each other, for entretainment purposes, are drags just prettier clowns?

So does the real meaning of homosexuality go over some peoples head; why do some people think gays are so funny, specially in television. Is the life of the gays on t.v. exploited as a commodity for the entretainement of the audience by producers. I wonder if the situation where a straight person tells a gay person they are so funny, if they realize that they are funny because they are so gay. Why is gay so entretaining!? The reason i believe is mostly because they are typecast as the the "other" i really don't see other explanation for it, but I believe gays for entretainment will stop the day where no one can tell if a person is gay unless a physical clue is gven away.

The 'Gay Network' - Good or Bad?

After our discussions in class about homosexuality in media, especially television, one station came straight to mind - Bravo. Ever since it's creation, Bravo has had a secret gay undertone, where majority of the characters are homosexuals, and everyone on the show is gay friendly. Though I love Bravo and most of the shows on it, there is a good and a bad side that comes with it. The good side is that gays aren't just in the background on these shows; most of the men are openly gay and do not have a problem in expressing it. Often, gays and lesbians are in positions of power on the show, whether they are successful in real estate (Jeff Lewis from 'Flipping Out'), owner's of successful businesses (Jackie from 'Workout'), or becoming new and upcoming fashion designers (Project Runway, now on Lifetime - ugh). I'm glad that Bravo has decided to show homosexuals in a favorable light and doing positive things. However, there comes a problem with all of this - is Bravo too gay? Most of the gay men and women on Bravo are portrayed as the stereotypical feminine gay or masculine lesbian. Even my roommates who enjoy Bravo time to time know that Bravo is the 'gay network.' The problem with this label is that if something, especially a cable television station, is labeled as something gay, that leads anyone who is subjected to those shows to think that gays and lesbians are only good at gay and lesbian activities, such as men designing a dress and women working out to the point where they have bodies comparable to some men. For closed minded individuals, this portrayal of homosexuals can be dangerous. Like we discussed in class, there is a world of gay people that do not fit the gay stereotype, which is something that is not seen on Bravo. So is the station good or bad? As someone who enjoys turning on Bravo on those lazy, rainy Sunday afternoons, I can't turn my back on it. But, the question is something to think about

Recently I came across an article that perfectly reinforced our discussion of the internet as the perfect panopticon. Kurt Greenbaum, the Director of Social Media for the St. Loius Dispatch, made headlines all over the web a couple of days ago by posting a seemingly harmless blog asking the audience, What’s the craziest thing you’ve ever eaten? And did you like it? If this "Director of Social Media" knew anything about the internet, he would understand that he was opening himself up to all kinds of vulgar jokes concerning male and female genitalia. When he finally got the inevitable response, his Victorian sensibilities were so offended he took it upon himself to break his own website's explicit terms of service and track the IP address of the commenter down to a local school. He then alerted the school that someone was leaving "inappropriate" comments from their computers, and a man in the IT department lost his job.

This ridiculously immature story would be tragic for free speech if weren't for the dual nature of the gaze online. On the one hand, there was Greenbaum, monitoring his websites comments and punishing those who violated his sensibilities. On the other hand, there was the mass majority of the internet watching Greenbaum, and their anger with his censorship has lead to a public outcry for him to lose his job as well. Based on prior similar cases, it is very likely they will get their wish.

http://www.kurtgreenbaumisapussy.com/

The Daily Show

This Thursday on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart ran a segment on two events concerning homosexuality in the news. The first event was of a male who had a lesbian boss and was fired because he told his boss that he thought her lesbian lifestyle was wrong. First, of all the segment he ran was from Fox news and secondly, the worker who was fired was Christian. The two groups in America who have been destroying the chance of any rights for gays in America for years. It is just ridiculous to me that in our modern society conservative religion is still dictating politics.

However, he showed some hope in the next part of the segment where a ten year old Elementary school student will not say the pledge of allegiance in school until there is equal rights for all Americans including gays. It amazes me that a ten year old child can have more sense about what is right, than a man in his late twenties. The student is also facing ridicule from other children in school and is being called a "gaywad", yet week after week he still refuses to say the pledge of allegiance. Hopefully this child will one day help get equal rights for gays in America.

Omar Little: Tough, Masculine, and Gay

I don't know how many of you watch The Wire (if you don't, you should), but if you do, you're familiar with the character of Omar Little. Omar is a tough dude. He robs drug dealers, is a key informant for the Baltimore police, and is just generally pretty badass. He's also gay.

What's really cool about The Wire's portrayal of Omar's homosexuality is that it's just really not that big a deal. Omar doesn't fit any cliched gay stereotype, like Jack in Will and Grace. And he's not just nominally gay; his boyfriends are characters in the show and there is onscreen kissing between them. In other words, Omar's gayness isn't a sterile, desexualized concept. The show allows him to be both gay and sexual.

And that's really it. Omar could be gay or straight and it wouldn't really have an impact on what his character does. He's a cunning and intelligent - and scary - guy, and while his homosexuality gives another wrinkle to his character, it's not the only thing. He's not reduced to his sexuality.

I think the Omar Little character is a big step forward for portrayals of gay people in the media. He's not the "pet" or "gay boyfriend" of a spoiled straight woman; he's not stereotypically flamboyant or shrill. He's a real, three-dimensional person. Other shows would do well to take a page out of The Wire's book!

Tide

This week we spoke about homosexuality in the media. I find it interesting that when discussing advertisements with lesbian connotations or bisexual undertones, we as a class were all quick to assume that the ad was not really implying homosexuality or homoerotic, but rather... the advertisement was high fashion, and sexuality could be molded in the sake of high fashion, of course! The women we pictured naked together were not supposed to be depicted as sexual forms for the female viewer, but rather, what we want to look like.

But, what about with this ad? Clearly there are homosexual implications with two men lying in bed together. And obviously we know they are in somewhat of a relationship together. But, if it wasnt for the caption denoting one man as the other mans boyfriend, would we assume the aforementioned rules that applied to women in our class?

This is funny because there are by far more ads depicting female on female, than male on male, but we as an audience seem to skim over these ads intentions. So, though female on female ads are by far more prevalent, they are questioned, while the not-so-often-seen male on male ad is very clear to us as an audience.

In class this week, Chelsea bought up an interesting view as we discussed the gay man and how they are portrayed in today’s media. What was proposed was that gay men are often displayed as spectacles or only as the female’s sidekick.

While I do believe that this is true; I feel that the gay community is often reduced to limited roles because of the apprehension that our society holds against homosexuality. And while this is no excuse, it is the same with most "ethnic" cultures and identities that do not fit into the “white norm.” Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans are often left out of media and similarly when they are represented; it is within very restricted roles.

What I can say about this is that perhaps with time and acceptance; the gay community will be represented in different lights in media as other "different" demographics have done as well. The black community had been held in very strict roles throughout history and has only recently been able to explore outside roles that are not held to specific stereotypes. Yes, it has taken a long time to get to this point, but that is expected. Blacks were often limited in media because of the unknown. Since not much is known about blacks, they are limited. I believe that all different demographics will one day find their place within media, but it takes time for our society to accept what is not held as the standard. I'm not saying that this is wrong, but sadly it's the way things are.

The Feminine Role in High Fashion

In class when we were discussing why it seems that female viewers are able to view the female body as arousing without hinging on any lesbian notions, while if a man were to look at an ad with two naked men, he'll be considered to have gay feelings towards men. In high fashion this is especially evident. The above picture's purpose was to sell the Aurelio Costarella's leather jacket, but the model is placed in such an environment where the leather jacket seems obscured. In fact the entire picture is obscure, suggesting that in high fashion there is a hyper fantasical world we all hope to reach. One because the clothes are so expensive that any normal person can only dream to wear; secondly, there's something artistic played into this, that the clothes are not made for the mass. It is unique and genuinely made from the hand of the designer. Through couture fashion we're allowed to take on unimaginable roles, not just simply what I want or if I were to give my month's salary I can buy this product and live as happily as the person in the ad. Couture fashion is more like if I were to sacrifice my entire year's paycheck for this product, I will be happy. Since this is close to impossible we can view the couture shoots with lenses that we never imagined, like a male's lense.
But it should be noted that female positioning have a difference in appeal between the two genders. If you look at male oriented viewers with a female model, they position themselves as frontal and head on. There is no doubt of the female's power in honing all of the male's gaze onto her. For female oriented viewers with female models, we usually see the model's position from the side or at an angle, hoping to create that infamous S-line curve. Still provocative but less demanding. It seems like the model is trying to attract the female viewer in a subtle way. You're asked to admire but you find yourself attracted to the model without knowing that your attention is focused only on the body. 

It's also interesting to note that couture fashion has redefined female standards of sexiness. In the above shot, you see Natalia, international model for Jean Paul Gaultier in a campaign for his women's wear. She is standing and they way she is fashioned gives off a sense  of asexuality. Female attraction seems to less about what the body can do to grab your attention but how outer worldly you can look, a woman in seemingly men's clothing standing strong but yet oddly attractive. 

Our Lady of Gagalupe

I've been fascinated by Lady GaGa since I met her last fall. Before anyone knew who she was, before four (soon to be five) hit singles and a platinum-selling record, and far before any insinuations that she was quickly becoming the next big "gay icon". Yet here she is only a year later, the tiny woman who signed my CD and called me fierce, establishing herself as a household name. She's become the obsession or arch-nemesis of every gay male on the planet. I can't say that I'm surprised. I may not be an expert on the gay community, but I've lived as a part of it long enough to recognize the reasons why Lady GaGa polarizes its members so distinctly. And I think it's mainly because she really has become a representation of what it means to be stereotypically gay.

I would argue that most members of gay community are viewed negatively by peers (in terms of character traits, not in the sense that being gay could be seen as morally wrong) mainly for their perceived reckless way of living. Extreme alcohol and drug abuse. Overt sexual promiscuity. The lust for popularity and acceptance. And perhaps on the most superficial of levels, these are the exact topics of most of Lady GaGa's songs. "Poker Face" flaunts the experimentation of bisexuality, "Just Dance" details the excitement of inebriation, "The Fame" asserts that being liked by the masses is the most important thing in the world, and "Boys Boys Boys" is about just that. Couple the somewhat relatable subject matter with a decent beat and a catchy hook and you've caught a good number of the gays based solely on the music. But her influence goes deeper than that. I stand by what I said in class about the gay community both being very aware of its "otherness", as well as being very accepting of the "other" located within separate social groups. Obviously Lady GaGa does not fit into the typical category of "woman". She's powerful. She's exciting. And most of all, she's successful by her own making. She is different. So in a way, it would only make sense for the average gay man to be attracted to that. But this is where the separation occurs between the gays that love her and the gays that hate her.

The hatred for GaGa has gone past simple statements that her music isn't pleasing to the ear. Many have claimed that Lady GaGa's schtick is tired. That she brings nothing new to the table, that her eccentricities are trite, that she's pandering to our community with nothing to show for it, that she's an attention whore that will never be satisfied with the following she's already gained. But I think the real root of these claims is simple: gay non-fans really hate that the rest of their community idolizes her persona, not that she's a bad musician. A chasm is formed between those who accept the person she is, her indulgence in popular culture and obvious gay-related character flaws, and those who see her as a setback for the way their community is perceived. So this ends up as circular discussion of both GaGa and the gays. While Lady GaGa herself epitomizes what it means to be the stereotypical gay man (flamboyance, excess, overindulgence, promiscuity, difference), just being a fan of hers creates the same negative connotations. Now liking Lady GaGa has become just as stereotypically gay as a rainbow flag or an interest in Cher. She is becoming the next "gay icon" simply because she has created herself to be intertwined with the essence of the culture.

I have yet to come to a conclusion on my feelings towards this subject. While Lady GaGa may represent most of the negative characteristics of a stereotypical gay man, I myself do not feel adversely effected in my community's relationship to her. I'll continue to enjoy the music and try to stay out of the social debate. Her new CD just leaked anyway.

Culturally Specific

This Wednesday, we discussed the representations of gays and lesbians in the

media, particularly in advertisements. At one point, we analyzed an ad where a

naked woman was standing behind another, nicely dressed woman. Some of the

commentaries in class suggested that the ad was not necessarily seen as lesbian.

Rather, it was just a hot photograph of two attractive women. However, some other

commentaries suggested that there is something about women, that makes this kind

of ad not lesbian. In other words, two women can maintain a close distance and

still be seen as just good friends, while if men maintain the same kind of closeness,

they will more likely be seen as gays. The video above, is a perfect example of this

kind of interpretation.

Since I forgot to mention it in class, I will argue that this conventional

interpretation isculturally specific. It is here, in America, that people interpret

things as described above.However, in some other countries, the closeness is

expressed and interpreted differently. For example, in Republic of Georgia (Eastern

Europe), when greeting, male friends not only shake each other's hands, but

also kiss on a cheek. This is to signify closeness and brotherhood of men. If you

travel to Georgia, you will see many men walking on streets with their arms around

each other. While you may be astonished by this, it is seen as a normal,

traditional way of expressing brotherhood in Georgia. This is not tosay that

Georgian male friends would lotion each other because of this brotherhood. If

they are straight, which 99% of males in Georgia is, they will avoid doing it.

However, the difference between Georgian and American male behavior is that

there are less limitations, but by no means none, in Georgia than there are in

America.

On the other hand, female friends almost always greet each other by kissing on

a cheek. And this behavior is almost universal.

Because both men and women maintain the closeness, very rarely, if at all,

will a couple of girls, or a couple of guys, be seen as gay or lesbian in Georgia.

However, in America, it is only OK if a couple of girls maintain this kind of closeness,

but not a couple of guys. This cultural difference is precisely what creates these

culturally specific interpretations.

Neil Patrick Harris as Barney

Neil Patrick Harris challenges the white heterosexual male stereotype, using it as the butt of every joke

Being a fan of "How I Met Your Mother," I've grown quite fond of Neil Patrick Harris. He intrigues me as an actor, because his character's sexual orientation is the exact opposite of what he is in real life. In the show he is depicted as an overly promiscuous pervert who has no real regard for women. In reality, he is actually an openly gay man (and proud of it).
He gets away with it, though. Both Neil Patrick Harris and his character Barney Stinson. I am referring to two things when I say that.
The first is the idea that Neil Patrick Harris, gay man, is portraying the white heterosexual male stereotype. I think he does it effectively, though I can't help but find traces of gayness in his antics. Like for example, I realized that the series actually gives him chances to express his sexual identity in not-so-subtle ways. In one scene, Ted "dares" him to cross-dress and pick up a lesbian, and he does so, clad in red lipstick and fishnet stockings. In another, Ted imagines an alternate world where he and Marshall are sexually involved, and we see Barney in bed with Marshall.
I respect Neil Patrick Harris as an actor. The fact that he can play something he is not and do it justice is commendable, and his openness about his gayness when he is NOT working is appreciated by the gay community. In one interview he actually debunks any rumors that he denies his sexuality, saying:
"Rather than ignore those who choose to publish their opinions without actually talking to me, I am happy to dispel any rumors or misconceptions and am quite proud to say that I am a very content gay man living my life to the fullest and feel most fortunate to be working with wonderful people in the business I love."

However, the other interpretation really bothers me. I think it's great to watch Neil in his interpretation of what it means to be straight (in fact, sometimes I think he is ridiculing the white heterosexual male and challenging the norm, because you can't help but laugh at how incredibly shallow Barney is). Perhaps he is drawing our attention to the ways in which the white heterosexual male is worth abhorring.
What I do really wish to point out, however, is the character of Barney Stenson, one entity, as forgivable.
Barney, who really is the epitome of SEXIST PIG, "gets away" with his mistreatment of girls. It frustrates me how the Barneys and Joeys make the act of sleeping with lots of girls COOL. In media, it establishes status, establishing the reputation of being DESIRED. And true enough, what is relayed in the media is implemented in reality.
But like I said, I think the fact that a gay man is portraying this character (he is by no means like that in real life) belittles the role of the white heterosexual man, and it comes off as taboo.
I think of the actors who do end up taking up the personas they play -- like maybe Matthew McConaughey or High Grant. (Obviously, I do not know these people, but I would assume that they are similar to the jackasses they play on TV. But I could be wrong.)
But there's something likeable about Neil Patrick Harris as a person, so even if his character ends up doing something absolutely sexist, I just see it as a joke. And that's somewhat comforting -- that maybe, Neil Patrick Harris redeems us females from the horrors of the white heterosexual man, in a way.
The more I think about it, the more I believe it. Barney has lots of famous quotes when he stresses on his "AWESOMENESS" and events involving manipulating girls "LEGENDARY." No one really takes him seriously, which somehow relegates the stereotype to an inferior position.

Drink It Straight Or Gay

In class we recently discussed how society views the homosexual through media outlets. Our culture does have a stereotype for each individual whether they are gay, black, Asian or are different from the ‘white norm’ in any other way. Subtle hints and clues can be found in advertisements or in dialogue on television shows which reflect the homosexual to be either too feminine, in a weaker position than straight men, or seen as an accessory.

This advertisement is from the Fall 2002 issue of Abercrombie and Fitch Quarterly. The men are all attractive, playful, and naked. The fact that they are seen socializing this way portrays them to have homoerotic tendencies. A&F plays on the idea of sex or orgies in many of their ads. The view they use is that A&F is a sexy brand and so wearing the clothes will attract other people to you. This is not a unique step for A&F in this picture. The brand has been chastised before for using sex and alcohol in images. This just takes it a step further using only men. Most other advertisements will have at least one woman in the picture to exclude the idea of homosexuality. Yet A&F takes this image and goes with it, the men are all attractive and are not exactly on top of one another, yet the idea is still there that these people are naked and ready for a good time.

This advertisement is from New Zealand. The company took the idea of ‘mixed or straight’ and turned it into ‘Drink it Straight or Gay.’ This is not subliminal at all, instead it is highlighted for the viewer/consumer. The idea is that anyone can have this drink, it is made for all people and serves as an example of equality. Yet there is underneath it all a subliminal message, there is a white arrow pointed to the word straight. Reflecting the idea that being straight is the right choice and that the company does prefer straight over gay.

If examined with a critical eye the message of homosexuality in our media does not accurately reflect these people. One can argue that bisexuality is an innate desire anyone is born with, yet in our society it is either straight or gay. A clear division has been made and established.

Bad Romance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACm9yECwSso

Lady Gaga is constantly pushing the boundaries through her music, style, dance and behavior. Her newest video for the single, “Bad Romance” is yet another example of how this pop-star has proven herself yet again to be controversial. If I remember correctly, it was James who said in class that this particular quality about Lady Gaga, her ability to “stir things up” and to act as an individual, were a main part of her appeal to the gay community. However, in this new music video, Gaga does nothing more than objectify herself. Yes, she is doing so in a way that is meant to be sarcastic and satirical, however, there are too many correlations between herself in the video and her every day behavior. In the video, Gaga is sold, truly commoditified, to a male suitor presumably for a night of passionate love making. He pays $1,000,000 (a fair price for an international superstar). She resists being “sold,” until she puts on a seductive little dance show, which ultimately leads to her being purchased; not to mention being dressed to an absolute bare minimum so that her video might be shown on cable television.

Well, Gaga is shown enduring a great deal of emotional hardship on the road to having sex with a good looking stranger, and when she finally meets him in the bedroom, she torches the mattress with him in it. This was her way of saying f*** you to men who view women as an object, something that can be purchased. For this, thank you Lady Gaga. However, I must ask the question: what did she do to not objectify herself? Lady Gaga is surely aware of the fact that she has become a brand, that she herself is a product that is being sold on a daily basis across the globe. If you pay attention to the main dance scene, around the time she is bid on, you’ll notice Vitamin Water bottles strategically placed on the tables, and Vodka bottles with brand names plastered on the side. This video is a contradiction in itself. Lady Gaga appears to be rejecting the idea of objectifying women, commoditizing, by her final message, setting the bed ablaze. But the very way Lady Gaga presents herself both in the video and to the public eye in general helps reinforce the very objectification she claims to be fighting. I’m not going to probe this topic TOO much deeper, but my question now is how does this message effect the homosexual community’s feelings towards Lady Gaga? How do they relate to such a message, when ultimately, it concerns women and not men? Do they feel that Lady Gaga objectifies herself or women? This is all generally speaking, but I am curious to know what others might think.

Lesbian Fashion Imagery

In Monday's class, I asked why fashion ads with blatant (or even subtle) lesbian imagery are marketed to and appeal to straight women. Some of you thought that straight women like to see sexy women because it appeals to what they might want to look like, which I think is a very valuable and likely part of it. Some thought that female readers are actually supposed to be seeing through the male gaze and judging women based off of that. I think this also makes a lot of sense and explains why we see barely clothed models and actresses on the cover of women's magazines. Perhaps the women readers take the role of the male readers here and judge women based on how sexy they are. Today, I was thinking that perhaps these ads represent a kind of hegemony. If it is largely men who create these ads and market them to women, maybe they are trying to normalize the idea that it is okay for women to be sexually attracted to other women (which would fit in with the stereotypical male fantasy). Or perhaps, more straight women are bisexual than straight guys are gay. I think this is an interesting argument, but I don't think it is possible that women just naturally feel this way and straight guys are less prone to. I think that it is a cultural thing that has been internatlized by many women. I think the most interesting aspect of this discussion is that there are no right or wrong answers. There are so many ways to interpret the meanings behind these representations and maybe they are all a little bit true.

Last Week's Blog (Masculinity in the OC)

In this week’s discussion we focused on masculinity in the mass media, particularly in the show The OC. However, while most of the discussion was based on the misrepresentation of women on the show and representing them as useless without a man in their lives, the truth is the OC is guilty of misrepresentation, but not of women instead of men. I believe the main goal of The OC is to send out the hegemonic message that every man needs to be the “ultimate manly man” with a physically fit body, a clumsy sidekick, and a beautiful girl at his side that he must save. The character of Ryan is the ultimate American dream of blonde hair, blue eyes, nerdy best friend, and the gorgeous girlfriend that is troubled and needs his rescuing.

While women are misrepresented as at times needing men to succeed, the message sent to men is that unless they are straight and masculine, success is not in your future. The character of Seth Cohen is constantly being saved by his best friend Ryan even up until the last season of the series showing that even if you get the beautiful girl (Summer) and the great college (RISDE) in the end you are nothing without a masculine man to save you. Clearly this message is just as damaging if not more to men than the message sent to women is.

The "Modern" Gay Couple.

Monday’s discussion got me thinking about one of my current favorite shows, Modern Family. And although I do believe it to be a progressive show about the new nuclear family, I feel that the gay couple on the show is depicted similarly to Will and Jack of Will and Grace. I have watched Modern Family since the first episode and I have yet to see the gay couple kiss each other.

When it comes to homosexuality, I can’t think of any progressive shows to date. I hope that, if the day comes for the first onscreen kiss between Phil and Mitchell, it is not some highly publicized event that the previews try to suck viewers in to see the action. I feel that for this show to be more progressive when it comes to homosexuality, it shouldn’t be publicized at all because, in my opinion, it takes away from the naturalness of the family being depicted.

Cameron and Mitchell are seen as two different, but at some times similar, men. Cameron is more on the effeminate, having an obsession of dressing his newly adopted daughter in all sorts of costumes, especially of 1960s/1970s divas, but he was a star linebacker on his college’s football team. Mitchell on the other hand seems to be much more reserved than Cameron but also enjoys pickling and scrapbooking.

What is most interesting to me is that at time, both Mitchell and Cameron make fun of being gay or condescend the other. Cameron told Mitchell that he, “Made figure skating sound even gayer.” Then when it came time for their adopted daughter’s first day of nursery school, Mitchell told Cameron to essentially tone down his “gayness,” so that they don’t seem too gay. I think until homosexuality is accepted by our society there will be no programming with a progressive frame of homosexuality.

The Modern Homosexual

In this week’s discussion we talked about homosexuality and its representation in the media. While we discussed how usually homosexuals are misrepresented in the media as often extremely feminine and over exaggerated or just the complete absence of them in general, I decided to take a look at newer shows that have been actually representing homosexuality in a less abrasive way and much not as stereotypical.
While shows like Will & Grace have shown homosexuality as sometimes stereotypical and reality television shows like The Real Housewives have used gays as a way of comic relief and sidekicks, other shows have attempted to go against this mode. Examples include Gossip Girl with Serena’s younger brother being gay and having a boyfriend, while neither is stereotypically homosexual, and his character’s conflicts on the show are not completely centered on his sexuality but he is instead treated as a real well rounded person. Melrose Place has Ella’s boss as a homosexuality but the way he came out was so nonchalant that it made it seem all the less important that he was gay. Finally, reality shows like The Real World have also helped with their wide range of homosexuals each season, while one season the individual may be extremely feminine and stereotypical, the next season the individual may be masculine and less exaggerated. While the media may never correctly represent homosexuality, thanks to shows like Real World, Melrose Place, and Gossip Girl the issue of homosexuality in the media has improved tremendously.

Hello my name is Gay.

In class we discussed how gay male lead has been heterosexualized in order to be brought into the mainstream and we talked about Will from Will and Grace. I have to agree that this idea of a gay man is still present in our prime time television today. For example, Serena's little brother Eric. He is the only gay character on the show at the moment and he came out during the second season. It was a big controversy within the Van der Woodsen family. Lilly, Eric's mom, even put him away to a mental hospital to make it seem like everything was "okay." However, it is interesting to see how un-gay Eric really is. He is hardly seen with with boyfriend, Johnathan. When he is there is hardly any physical contact. Eric is not flamboyant like Jack from Will and Grace. He is very calm and straight. If anyone saw the show and never saw his boyfriend, I don't think that person would have ever accused Eric of being gay. Also Eric's story lines never really have anything to do with his sexual orientation. Maybe it's because hes not a lead role, but he doesn't definitely play a big role where he has stories of his own. Also unlike Will, Eric does not present any kind of sexual access with his female friends. Eric never caressed Jenny's breast or anything similar to that. However, I feel like many times Serena and Jenny are lost without Eric's help or opinion. Even though it may be something little, I feel like those two characters always seem to seek out for his opinion and help. So it was interesting to see how Eric is portrayed as not really a gay character but a character who has this title of being gay.

On a side note...

I just came across the poster for "Couples Retreat" movie, which apparently has been changed and the black characters were removed by the studio for the premier of the movie in the UK. The Huffington Post, posted on their blog ; "A Universal spokesman said the revised advert aimed 'to simplify the poster to actors who are most recognisable in international markets'."

Just wanted to take you guys back to the issues brought up in class regarding "blackness" and race. Is the excuse provided by the studio enough for the critiquing audiences?

What counts as being masculine?

After our discussion in class on masculinity, I began to think about my own perceptions of masculinity and how my perceptions have changed throughout the year. Being from New Jersey, where there is an endless number of muscular italian guys with tan skin, gelled hair, and sports cars, the cycle is constantly alive as this is often one of the main forms of masculinity seen by some people in New Jersey and definitely for people who live outside of New Jersey. Watching the trailer for the new show 'Jersey Shore' on MTV, these guys are seen caring about nothing else except how good their bodies look and how many girls they can get in a night. Since coming to New York, masculinity is something that doesn't have to be outwardly displayed. In New York City and especially NYU, there is a large openly gay population, suggesting that people are more relaxed and open to being themselves. The normal components that would make someone "gay" in a place like the Jersey Shore, like dressing well, being skinny, having a sense of style and perfectly trimmed hair, are things that do not define masculinity in NYC. It's a breath of fresh air - to see a men be comfortable in their own skin, in my opinion, is the best form of masculinity. New York has paved a new way of defining masculinity; let's hope the rest of the country catches on.

postmodern perspective

This week we had a discussion on postmodernism and the effects it has on our society. When we discussed the postmodernism of Las Vegas and Epcot, I was thinking of why these attractions give tourists a feeling of completion with the replication of world wonders. Although I find a sense of completion when seeing the Eiffel tower in France, many would agree that going to Epcot and seeing the Eiffel tower could be just as good. I think that giving tourists a sense of culture from another country is great, but the creation of places like Las Vegas and Epcot have given tourists a distorted vision of other cultures
Another instance that of postmodernism that we mentioned in class, is whether Hollywood movies will continue slacking in originality. In recent years a vast majority of Hollywood movies have been based off of books and plays that were previously created. I think that it is great for different directors to interpret scripts and ideas in new ways, but there is nothing better than seeing a movie that is truly original and created for the first time. The movies that have been created several times, such as Bat Man, has no originality in idea, but has uniqueness in the director’s perspective of the film to make it innovating. Postmodernism in this light has truly brought new ways of creativity, and has depicted a new type of invention.

This week in class we raised questions such as: is there room for creativity in this postmodern world that seems inevitable? I personally have a hard time placing myself on either side; Thinking about the discourse of creations, whether it is artistic or scientific has made me realize how expansive our creative level has gotten. Yes it is true that the past lives in the present, but i rather look at the past for fundamental purposes and not as a source for recreation on something that has already been done. Like everything else in life, history is the source to many new achievements; in an industry like music, where great ones like Mozart and Beethoven have set a very high bar, one would say that these genius creations are the roots for many music artist these days. Same goes for art, especially with technology and scientific research, the past has not only been a base for us to build on but to excel at, because of the mistakes made in the past we are able to fix them and create better.

Instead of questioning authenticity and room for the innovative, i think it is more a question of taste, which of course varies from person to person. There is no doubt that The Eiffel Tower or even the Great Wall of China are not out of this world creations; and honestly no, nothing can top them off, they are no doubt the great ones for when they were invented, but what about jets like the SR-71 Blackbird (fastest known jet airplane) or the Emirates office tower in Dubai and even the IPhone. These are all inventions that have progessively change for the better and given us art. Art exist in many forms and shapes, in some cases what is not considered art it still is art, so instead of critiquing postmodernism and questioning room for creation, society should be more appreciative of what artists are offering us; one could appreciate the past and the future at the same time, and if you really think about it, at the end of the day there is no such a thing as "good taste" and because we live in a postmodern world, we can practice human agency and decide for ourselves.

Anime is Not for Kids

Because I was an art student that went an arts high school, where japanese anime was celebrated among my peers, but never by my teachers. As an art student we're inclined to fall in love with the hand drawn characters, who always look oddly perfect but have far from perfect personalities. Due to my intrigue of the artwork, I rarely found the stories involving the hand drawn characters to be weird, but neither did I find them to be suitable for kids. My parents and perhaps adults their age constantly view cartoons and anime to be made for kids, but in fact anime is too cruel and has really slow but intricate plotlines that would bored children to death.

When Sturken and Cartwright was talking about Akira and Astro Boy as a postmodernist text, I begin to realize that all the anime I watched in my high school years were also quite postmodern. For example, Bubblegum Crisis is about four unlikely human girls get recruited by a mystery scientist, who gives them these high technological suits that enhances their reflexes and vision. These four warriors spend most of their time killing out alien robots that seek to destory Tokyo. Through the postmodernist lense, the anime rarely shows Tokyo with crowds of people, actually the whole anime makes you think that the only people living in Tokyo might just be the four girls and the one scientist. Tokyo as a backdrop is not glimmering with lights and busy atmosphere, you always see factories and large vacant buildings. The conclusion of the anime is about the four warriors defending Tokyo from an alien invasion, in which they're miniscule technology looks horrible whimpy compared to the alien robots. There's one phrase in the anime that gets repeated quite often is: "Just quit and accept your death. Humans are too weak to create their fates." to which you always hear the response: "At least we try. That's what makes humans different from robots, we like to create our own fate whether it's good or not." If I read this like Sturken and Cartwright has instructed, the airy Tokyo represents the feeling that the Japanese felt after the bombing of Hiroshima; the four warriors' response to the alien attacks are the Japanese's struggle to retrieve their original life style despite being attacked. Although children would find Bubblegum Crisis to be the female version of Power Rangers, where there's cool robots and crazy fight scenes, but these futuristic anime always have a very melancholy feeling to them. I rarely watched them because when the creators of these anime constantly make the storyline quite sporadic and the characters to be the outlier's of the hegemonic society. These qualities make a lot of sense viewed in the postmodern lense, the creators are trying to grasp at the horrid reaction after the bombing of Hiroshima where their country dissappeared in an instant and people's family lines were diminished without a trace of body part or ashes to remember them by.

Japanese anime that don't involve futuristic settings also follow the same rhythm, but instead of using technology as the unseen anatgonist, anime artists use magic. In X, Kamui, the protagonist, has to make a decision between destroying the world and having it renew again back to when humans have not corrupted the order of nature or maintain the current world. There's always these battles torn between complete destruction or simply the struggle to continue living.

In truth, not only is anime not suitable for kids, I don't think Japanese anime industry market their products to children. Children that have not experienced these horrible events or even understand them through books would find anime characters to be boring or simply weird, but their weird for a reason.

Why bother to get a passport?

One summer I took a ride on a gondola, saw the top of the Eiffel Tower, went inside the Great Pyramids, and toured the Taj Mahal. Did I travel the world in one summer? No, I just went to Las Vegas.

Most cities are built because of their location on fertile lands, access to waterways, or intersections or trade routes. Not surprisingly, Las Vegas fits in none of these categories. It is a totally unnatural city in the middle of the desert. However, each year it draws millions of tourists seeking to experience the reality of various cultures and the height of entertainment, food and shopping. Las Vegas allows a visitor to take a photo next to The Statue of Liberty right before eating a reputed restaurant that might only have other locations in New York and London.

Although a Vegas tourist might be not aware of urban decay in Venice or the fact that the city itself is sinking, a gondola ride at the Venetian provides the tourist with what she would rather have: being driven by a gondolier singing an Italian song in a false accent wearing outdated garb. The tourist doesn't have to be exposed to the stinking canals, or waste in the canals, the often unimpressive reality of what Venice is today. Instead, the tourist gets an idealized Venice - in this Venice, the waters are always pristine and the gondoliers are always handsome with great voices. Why should the tourist experience an often disappointing reality, when s/he has the opportunity to see an ideal?

The School of Clones

Our discussion of postmodernism showed the concept in a somewhat negative light, particularly in the sense that we believe everything that can be done has already been done before. This in turn alludes to seemingly ever-present pastiche, which are recreations that imitate and combine various elements from other texts. It would seem that we as a society have grown tired of this process, longing for the "brand new" and innovative that may never come. However, we just need to look a little harder to realize that "brand new" and innovative things really do grow out of the pastiche that we seem to hate so much. Clone High, an MTV series that completed a short television run in early 2003, is an example of one such innovation.

In this mock teenage drama, the clones created from the DNA of various historical figures go through the trials and tribulations of your everyday high school student. On one hand, the show is based around the humor created from our knowledge of these figures, how they are portrayed as teenagers, and the interaction between the two. Abe Lincoln spends his time awkwardly and unsuccessfully courting the super-popular Cleopatra, Gandhi struggles with his increasingly-prevalent A.D.D. symptoms, and JFK balances his well-known womanizing hobby ("Catherine the Great? Or should I say Catherine the So-So?) with the fawning of his two gay foster dads. On the other hand, this show is a direct critique of modern young television. Each episode begins with a voice-over parodying the following "very special episode", the clones struggle through issues of drugs, relationships, and underage drinking, and the series even ends at prom (the penultimate episode in any school-themed broadcast). The viewer finds humor in these events both from historical relevance as well as real-life relevance. And here, pastiche combines in several different ways to create a very successful show.

As far as innovation goes, it is important to focus more on Clone High's merits rather than its use of history and television to carry its plot. Who has questioned the legendary status of Gandhi, Lincoln, Joan of Arc, or Julius Caesar before? Who has combined textbook knowledge with pop culture? While pastiche is obvious here, we should look more at the little things we've never seen. "Brand new"ness can only be achieved in baby steps.

Masculinity in NYC

The readings and discussion on masculinity really struck a cord with me because I believe that these violent and hyper masculine representations of men, have a really profound impact on the way men view themselves and, in turn, women. But in New York City-a place that is inundated with advertising- we see so many types of men and types of masculinity. At NYU for example, not only is there a large gay population but the hipster crowd also strays from the hyper masculine man we so often see in advertisements.

*See above for hipsters.

So are we lucky enough to live in New York City where the population is so diverse and people are more accepting in order to see all these different types of men? Or is it possible that media and advertising images of hyper masculine men simply don't affect all men? I guess NYC is just a very diverse place where we can see men who aggressively hit on women side by side with straight guys in tight jeans.

Can Art Still Blow Our Minds?

This week I want to direct everyone's attention to an incredible art project, a

wall-painted animation. On Wednesday, we were discussing whether or not there

is any room for creativity left. In other words, we were trying to explain as to why

contemporary artists refer back to old styles of art, if you will, and try to create

something new. I do agree that the past remains in the present and it is almost

impossible to avoid. I also agree - to some extent - with Roland Barthes, who

stated unprecedentedly that "the author is dead." Meaning that whatever an artist

creates, will always depend on the existing structures. We are ultimately trapped

within these structures. But I would like to believe that new structures can be created.

Symbolic representations are also challenged in some media texts. For example,

for years, whiteness was seen as positive. "Good" characters were always light

and bright, whereas the "bad guys" were always represented as dark characters.

But films like the Matrix challenge this symbolic representation. The "good" guys

like Neo or Trinity always wear black clothing and accessories. Yet, they are the

positive characters and the heroes of the film. Conversely, the twins appearing in

the second film, are presented as negative characters, the antagonists. Yet, they

are entirely white. Even their hair is white, not to mention the clothing and the

skin color.

Our expectations are constantly challenged when we hear about new

technological inventions. Just when we think that there can be nothing beyond

what is already there, something new comes up and blows our minds. I believe

that the video presented above, serves as a good example of art that challenges

our expectations and blows our minds.

Cougar

http://nymag.com/arts/tv/features/61733/

This article happened to be published in tandem to our classroom discussions dealing with gendered stereotypes. “The Cougar Moment” is a trip down memory lane of the most iconic of female cougars, in relation to the newest cougar to hit television, Courtney Cox in Cougar Town. I have not gotten a chance to see Cox’s new show, but I haven’t heard the best of critic acclaim. In fact, the writer of this article, Emily Nussbaum, tears the shows to pieces. Why is that, one might ask? Because she believes that Cox’s character, Jules Cobb, represents the worst kind of cougar that exists. Instead of exalting her character, by creating a sense of pride and independence in being a single older woman, Jules whines and moans about her deteriorating good looks. Samantha Jones from Sex & The City, on the other hand, exudes enough self confidence that there is no need for her to even bring up the fact that she is a beautiful woman. Her assertion and control in the situations she is placed in is exuded in all her actions, from her smile, down to her shoes, and what you’re assuming this character must be carrying in her purse.

It upsets me to think about how writers of these shows can create a self-loathing character such as Jules Cobb, who is sending out mixed messages about what it is a single, older woman represents. Samantha Jones sees sex purely as self-fulfillment. She understands the power she creates for herself in a relationship when she treats sex as a necessity. By doing so, Samantha develops competitive and aggressive qualities in order to acquire what she wants; these are typically male characteristics and it is wonderful that Sex & The City allows for a female character to possess them. Jules Cobb, on the other hand, views “sex as a measuring stick: proof you’re hot enough to make men want to have sex with you.” ( “The Cougar Moment”) I agree with the writer of this article, that Cox’s character would most likely resonate more with its viewers if they created a character more similar to Samantah Jones. Yes, this may show another side of the “typical cougar” character, however, it is a negative representation of women. One that is so blatant, it may be causing viewers to detract from the show, surely alongside some other reasons…

cultural ideologies of gender in 'Friends'

I'm sure we've all heard of the TV show friends, and probably many of us have seen a couple of episodes. It's one of my favorite shows ever - my sister and I own the entire series and used to watch it pretty often to pass the time (before I got to NYU).

Cultural ideologies of male masculinity, and even more broadly, heterosexuality are a very large part of the show and its humor. One rather specific example of this is Joey and Chandler's friendship, and more particularly, the way that they engage each other emotionally and to a certain extent physically. A major running gag in the series is Joey and Chandler's occasional propensity to hug each other after an event that somehow shows the strength of their friendship.

Throughout the show, and evidenced by the hugging sequences, there's a pretty distinct polarization in categorizing male friendships - on the one hand there is a normative, conventional and heterosexual 'buddies' friendship and on the other there's an undertone of a homosexual, 'this is weird, let's stop hugging' ideology.

Part of the humor lies in Chandler and Joey's characters, the former is constantly referred to as effeminate while the latter is (maybe in every episode) referred to as a womanizer. It's funny, as well as problematic, because the situation is displayed and treated in a way that is intentionally pointing out a cultural and gender taboo - that the conventional, heterosexual man doesn't hug.

Extra: Joey and Ross taking naps

Comic Adult.

So I'm very much a fan of adult cartoons and comics as they seem completely ironic to me and quite frankly make me feel like I am a part of and included in that irony. However, despite the misleading opening sentence of this post, this post is not about adult cartoons as much as it's about children's cartoons. I have to admit that I am a huge Spongebob fan. And I find it completely weird that as a 19 year old college student, I find amusement in a show meant for a 8-13 year old age range. Or is it? Spongebob most definitely contains humor that most 8-13 year olds would never catch let alone understand. I think it's safe to say that the producers of these shows add humor meant for older audiences. Perhaps a bigger question is: Are producers interested in entertaining all segments or is all the hidden adult humor meant to be hidden only to be later discovered by adults. I am tempted to go with the latter as I personally am a child who has grown up on a show only to return to that show with new meaning and greater understanding.


Or maybe the show is not targeted to me at all and my appreciation for children's program is something that I will have no matter what my age :/

The Rise and Fall of The Club Kids

Last week I blogged about the cult sensation, book turned movie Party Monster: The Rise and Fall of the Club Kids. I think both the book and movie are interesting to look at yet again, this time in the context of the ideology of what it is to be masculine in modern society. As Meyers discussed in her piece on Masculinities of the OC, the hegemonic male is a stereotypical aspect of hegemonic desire; he is tanned, buffed and bronzed. He is heroic. He is aggressive. He is all male. And, when reading her piece, it became clear that though she was discussing the OC, she was making presumptions that most fiction in our youth culture is presented with the male protagonist being this hegemonic concept of masculinity.

Party Monster, however, is interesting in that the characters are all subordinate, as they are homosexual and effeminate in total. So, does this mean that Party Monster is counter-hegemonic because it is not representing hegemonic masculinity to exclusion? I think the answer is yes. Yes because their representations of the protagonist is not the ideological stereotype.

Urs Fischer

As I was reading a review in the Village Voice of the Urs Fischer show now on display at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, I found it to be saturated with post-modern criticism. One of the first critical questions she poses about the exhibit is "isn't this a replay of something we've seen a hundred times before?" A characteristic of the post-modern discourse is that nothing is new and everything has been done before. The article continues with this theme comparing everything in the exhibition to something from the past. She dedicates the last section of her article to dissecting each section of the show and highlighting all the artists who influenced Fischer, from Koons to Kippenberger. Most art develops in discourse within a movement, a time period, or in reference to another form of art, so that many art contemporaries produce similar work, such as Andy Goldsworthy and Robert Smithson in the land art movement. However, the criticism within the post-modernist era is that there is not cohesive movement between contemporaries, rather it is characterized by a random speckling of artists in discourse with past movements making contemporary art shows seem dated.

One of the comments in the article I found most interesting was how the New Museum was "Inaugurated as an upstart venture with aims to realign the art world's chi..., 30 years later, it is following the standard template: anointing white, male, European artists in an attempt to build a reciprocal beneficial art history." So, maybe it is not our generations fault we are not seeing any new art, but the benefactors of art are obsessed with art of their generation unwilling to admit anything is new is worthy of display. Although this may be the case, I think there is new innovative art being displayed. I particularly enjoyed the Cai Guo-Qiang show at the Guggenheim. The artist uses the tradition Chinese gunpowder to make his drawings, which he explodes on the paper leaving distinct marks. I also think that in the field of Architecture, Frank Gehry is doing innovative work by developing his buildings to mold into the surrounding landscapes. At the Guggenheim Bilbao in Spain, Richard Serra also designed a monumental sculpture for the permanent collection to highlight the architecture of the Frank Gehry, which develops an interesting discourse. The sculpture itself also presents a new idea of sculpture to be a compounding communal experience over a matter of time, hence the title of the work.

Although I generally take a negative view on post modernism, I do think there is new concepts to explore in art we just have to look for them.

New Masculinity

Our discussion of masculinities and how they're presented in the media made me click on this article, "Do Young Men Need a New Kind of Masculinity?".  The piece discusses a new kind of young man, one who is progressive and even feminist, who resists traditional ideas that men have to be "emotionless dickbots," as the writer puts it. I have to say, the idea of a feminist man was one I hadn't thought about before. 

And honestly, I don't think I know any guys who proudly self-identify as "feminist," although I know plenty who care about equality and are sensitive to women's issues. The thing is, what kind of role models do these guys have? They're presented with few options in the media (think about the four types of masculinity exemplified by characters in The O.C). 

None of my male friends are overtly sexist. I've never felt like I was inferior or like they didn't take me seriously. But I don't think any of them would ever say they were feminists, because they've been taught that a real man can't be anything that's too closely associated with women. Their role models on TV and in the movies are strong, successful, don't show emotion, and always call the shots when it comes to relationships. 

I think this portrayal of the ideal man probably creates a lot of anxiety for guys - they're constantly trying to one-up each other in terms of masculinity. It must get kind of exhausting. I'm glad that men are starting to resist this and it makes me hopeful for a more equal future. 

Bringing back the classics in a Postmodern Society

I still am by no means an expert at postmodernism, but I think based on our last discussion we could say that generally, that is the direction that media chooses to take nowadays.
We equated movies like Shrek and all Disney/Pixar films to the movement. Clearly, such animation is quite revolutionary in terms of technological manipulation. Many films geared toward kids are following the trend: think Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Bolt, Spy Kids. In fact, I don't think that cartoons are ever the case anymore. It's a sign of the times -- technology reflects progress, and in this competitive world we always want to be ahead.
Until you mention "Princess and the Frog," which is Disney's nostalgic way of bringing back the magic of the good old days, when characters were drawn by hand. MANUAL LABOR.
So does that mean Disney is relegating to an inferior form of animation, with all the others taking the digital direction? Are they running out of ideas? Alternatively, is it a sign that postmodernism is not anymore the case?
I think we're overanalyzing here. In my opinion, Disney is just reponding to those fans who miss that kind of animation (wasn't "Lilo and Stitch" the last one of its kind?). But there really is something CLASSIC about returning to that mode of art.
Even if some may view that kind of animation as "outdated," I see it in a different lens. Just because there are some signs of media industries resorting to postmodernist tactics does not mean that it is FIXED. Think of it this way: when a kid buys a new toy on the market, it does not mean that he will stop playing with his older toys. We do not accept one and reject all the others. Progress is not defined by the "hot new thing" being used today, but other inventions are taken into account, be it past or present. We accumulate layers and layers of ideas, and we are free to pick and choose from these different things.
It works with the fashion industry too. For example, flashy neon tights, which were "in" back in the 80s and out for a while, are back in. There's so much freedom in that trends are recycled and reinvented. I'd say the same thing with "Princess and the Frog." Though the plot line honestly does not excite me, I'm interested to see how Disney resurrects what used to be an old art form.