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

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

Documenting the Mysterious

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

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

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

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

Science- it just asks for your eyes

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

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

Physiognomy-A Science?

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

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

Dockers Are NOT For Girly Men

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

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

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

Political Fascination.

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

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

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

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

Technology as Media Spectacle

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

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

A society's collective social consciousness is formed by the more commonly known narratives that exist within it. It's how popular media is able to actively shape ideology - media, and particularly advertisements, are everywhere.

Soap advertisers in the Industrial Era considered themselves both builders of empires and carrying out the imperial mission, a consideration that marks the shift from small business to imperial monopolies. We discussed how they were able to change the perception of human hygiene, giving importance to being clean, and creating a new way to distinguish social and economic differences. Their success, I think, can be measured by how importantly we hold hygiene to the point where it has become an obsession.

Any quick survey of TV shows, movies, advertisements, etc. show this obsession - hospitals on shows like Grey's Anatomy, ER, and House are always super clean, super sterile environments (at least in appearance). Even the people on these shows are clean, they're pretty people without imperfections. And in movies and shows that feature New York, a place we know so well to be quite dirty, public places like subway stations, cars, the street, etc. are all so clean. CSI NY I think is a great example of this. To begin with the show is rather scientific, there's a level of scientific spectacle that goes hand in hand with hygiene. The "grittyness" of the show is always on a much cleaner level than reality.

Bodies

As soon as started discussing the bodies exhibit in class, i thought of the hottentot people and or discussion about the "analytical studies" done to the black people. Back in the day, it was thought that Black people had a different anatomy than white people so they were put through tests, dissected, and made into a spectacle. In this picture, you can see that all the white people staring at the one black person in the center who has an enormous butt. they are viewing her from all angles and probably commenting on how peculiar and interesting she is. Sound familiar? If you walk into the bodies exhibit you will hear words like "fascinating!" and "disgusting" all at the same time, and I am pretty sure its not a stretch to say that the white people in the picture are doing the exact same thing. We constantly need a spectacle - something to make ourselves feel normal and superior. Its okay, we can stare at these dead chinese prisoners because their lives probably sucked anyway and in their death they're contributing to "science." While we may feel we have evolved in terms of human and civil rights, have we really? there will always be something new and something undiscovered for us to exploit and manipulate for our own benefit. We can dress it up and place it under the term "science," but there is no actual scientific study done in this exhibit. it is pure and simply, an exhibition. We need to be weary of exploitative spectacles like the body exhibit that are prevalent in our society. And if anyone gets the chance to go to the bodies exhibit, try and remember that these "bodies" were once people.

Sex and Science: Good Match?

Corporations use a variety of tactics to convince us to buy their product. One of which we talked about is science.
Science, which involves repetitive experimentation to gain evidence (often expressed in quantifiable terms), adds legitimacy to any argument. Numbers say it all, and if we find out that things have been tried and tested, all the more we are convinced.
I've seen these ads everywhere (mostly subway stations on my way uptown) -- these new athletic shoes that aid in weight loss.
The new EasyTone walking shoe, a provocative new marketing campaign says, "leaves leg and buttock muscles better toned than regular walking shoes." Officials from Reebok, a unit of Adidas, say the EasyTone is the company’s most successful new product in at least five years.
Isn't that common sense though? Shoes are associated with walking, and walking burns calories. You don't have to be a scientist to figure that out.
The selling point lies in the design.
"Balance pods" added to the toe and heel of the shoe requires the person to do more work to control balance and engage the muscle. The effect, apparently, is like walking on a sandy beach.
Let's see this for ourselves:


Again with the "sex sells" theme! And they're very consistent at that: in one commercial for the shoe, the camera drifts away from the woman’s face and zooms in on her backside. Another ad claims that the leg and butt-toning effects of EasyTone will "make your boobs jealous."
Who knew, science and sex make for a good marriage. Nice comeback, Reebok (Reebok's been dead to me for a while).
Another thing I'd like to point out is the fact that THESE ARE NOT MEANT FOR USE AT THE GYM, or for running. They're meant for walking.
So as you strut around with the "perfect ass," you're wearing sneakers. I don't know about you, but sneakers to me are not sexy (Vanessa Hudgens attempted to market Ecko shoes as such -- see "Sneakernight" video). So it's really interesting how Reebok TRIES to make very unglamorous-looking shoes ultra-feminine and erotic.

The Body

We recently discussed the human body and our obsession with death, sexuality and dissection. The creation of life has also come with the questions and uncertainty of death. People have put other species on exhibit for thousands of years. One specific example is the spectacle of live action and death with the Gladiators as they fought wild beasts as well as one another. Today one can enter any museum to see a species on display in form of bones. Overall humans enjoy observing life, but have more of a fascination with death because although frightening, it captures our interest.

The Bodies Exhibit is a perfect example of how enraptured we are with the human body. In the exhibit, human bodies are dissected and skinned to reveal muscles, organs and blood. The controversial showcasing of the human bodies has contributed to the exhibit’s wide range of publicity. Due to the level of popularity, the actual reality of the concept has not seemed to affect the visitors. Although the bodies have been changed to appear more plastic than human there is still the notion that these figures once held life and are now reduced to the same level as a lifeless painting.

The objectification of the human body has reached its highest point as people have flocked to the exhibit worldwide to observe the bones and brains they themselves also hold. It appears as though visitors enter the exhibit not only to observe the harmful effects of cigarettes and alcohol on the body but also out of self-obsessed fascination. This relates to the museum displaying the bodies as objects rather than humans, and in turn, according to the level of popularity and the statistics, the idea that most people do not seem repulsed but fascinated by this new perspective of life.

Oddly enough many people who visited the Bodies Exhibit stated they would like to donate their bodies to the exhibit one day. This reflects the realization of this form of objectification of the body and on a different level, the self-obsessed fascination in the way that one would want their body to be preserved for eternity.

We are an interesting species, one which is not repulsed, but delighted by violence and death. It all falls under the sphere of fascination. I’m just curious to see how far we will go- as of now it is in our media, our education, our lives. Maybe Gladiators will come back one day after all.

Cybertronic Purgatory

Our discussion of science uncovered how large an influence new technology has on society, not only for informational progress but also in advertising and media. We as a culture seem to be obsessed with all things future. We're fascinated by pictures of space, made the story of The Terminator a box-office hit, and long for the day we can live like Mr. and Mrs. Jetson. It would only make sense then that these futuristic influences make their way into music as well.

Janelle Monae, recently (or perhaps not so recently) signed to Bad Boy Records, does just that. Her 2008/2009 musical endeavors tell the story of Cindi Mayweather, an android who is hunted down by the futuristic Metropolis police for falling in love with a human. The video for the single "Many Moons" takes place at an android auction, where Monae plays the role of Mayweather performing for the bidders amongst dozens of robots that look just like her. And it seems that most of her success, already taking into account a uniquely powerful voice combined with music that sounds right off an Outkast album, comes from her ability to combine these fictional tales with the funk of past soul singers. Our radios are currently dominated by pop lyrics about love, cheating, and nights out on the town. We watch video after video of a generic front woman scantily clad in front of a microphone. In this kind of environment, Monae's quirky personality is refreshing. She caters to our aural sensibilities, but also shows glimpses of this cyborg future in the stars that we dream about.

I don't think it's a stretch to see music and science combined successfully like this, but I would be curious to see the full potential of her influence with more exposure. Unfortunately Diddy isn't so adept at recognizing actual talent.

Altering Our Emotions

Commercials can be very emotionally manipulative. Through the use of certain music and visuals commercials can make viewers feel happy about their products so that they will go out and by them. What is interesting about commercials for prescription medicines is that the product itself is designed to alter the emotions of the user. In the below ad for a depression medication, a woman would like to wind herself up and make herself more robotic. I think this could relate to what Rosie's group was saying today about the Svedka vodka robot girl and its relations to how men would like women to be more robot and suppress their complicated emotions.



I think people are skeptical of whether or not medications are a good or bad thing and I think people are actively questioning whether or not what scientists tell them is always the best thing for them. I myself tend to automatically assume that anything a scientist or a doctor would tell me would be the truth and should be trusted. At the same time I am suspicious of medicines that offer to make all sorts of problems disappear. I think the problem for me is that either I cannot believe that these medicines can do what they really say or that maybe they can but their effects are really unnatural. I think as long as people are discussing whether or not these medications are really necessary for them, then the emotional manipulation in these advertisements will hopefully have less effect.

Science and visual culture

This week we talked about science and visual culture and what better place

to look for the inspiration for this post than the Technology, Entertainmne,

Design (TED) website. After brief research, I came across one of the TED

talks posted on the website that was given by Ed Ulbrich, one of the

leading scientists working on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Many

of us know that the film was groundbreaking in terms of the technology

that was incorporated in the production. As he explains in this video, 155

people all involved in ditigal technology industy worked on the project for

nearly two years. Ulbrich proceeds that the first half of the film displays a

computer-generated character, which looks so real. Apparently, the

making of this film was postponed a few years ago due to the absence of

technology that could realize the complexities of the plot and the vision

of the director and producer.

This film generates some questions. We all know that computer-generated

characters were often used in many different films, however, this case is

very different, for the mere fact that due to the new technological

innovations and creativity, the Brad Pitt character looks very real at

the age of 87, even though, the facial mimics that it displayes belong to

Brad Pitt. This means that it is no longer necessary for the casting

managers to look for actors and actresses of different ages who have

identical features in order to show aging of a person in a film. It is also

worth mentioning that the computer-generated head of an old man was

placed instead of a body-actor’s face. Since, the face of an actor was

going to be replaced with this 3D head, it did not matter who would be

the body-actor. For this reason, Brad Pitt only got involved in the acting

when he had to play a character closer to his own age.

The question than becomes: What if, in about 20 years, the filmmakers,

since it is now possible to create real-looking computer-generated

characters, only used this method to make films? What kind of impact

would that have on actors and acting in general? If they advance this

technology to the point where it is unneccessary to have real-actors act,

will people react the same way to these imaginary, virtual actors and

actresses as they do to the real ones? Will this challenge the criteria for

being a celebrity.

To Sing or Not to Sing?

This week in class we held class presentations and one in particular struck me as interesting. One group decided to focus on music and its effect on the media, especially film, and how changing the background music to certain films can completely change a scene, and how certain songs become known as theme songs for the film they were featured in. However, I thought it would be interesting to examine films that have absolutely no soundtrack attached and see the reasons why and effects that come out of this.

The first film that came to my mind was Alfred Hitchcock’s classic, The Birds. The fact that there is no score makes those bird sounds extremely effective. Those sounds without an interfering soundtrack makes them stand out much more and it’s as if Hitchcock’s trying to say, ‘this is a real world and thus there is no ’omniscient’ music. The next film I thought of was Dog Day Afternoon, a film I did my presentation on earlier this semester. I believe this film had no soundtrack for two reasons, it was to emphasize the acting, and because the film was based off of a real event making it play out as real life where music does not play in the background. The final films I have found with no soundtracks are The Blairwitch Project, Cloverfield, and Paranormal Activity. All three of these films became successes because of their realism effect because of the shaky camera, realistic acting, bad quality sound, and most importantly no music. So it is my overall conclusion that the reason music is so successful in many films is because in a film we like to escape and take ourselves out of real life therefore background music makes it seem that much more magical. However, in films where realism is the main approach, background music would take away from the realistic approach. I find myself open to both types of films depending on the film I am looking for, if it is a film I’m looking for an escape the background music is the perfect quality, if I find myself looking to be frightened, or truly captivated and feel like I am there then I would probably prefer there to be no soundtrack.

Speaking of Viagra...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vj_iYTdS0

As we discussed in class the strategy used by pharmaceuticals for advertising, in this case Viagra, I stumble with an advertising that fits the shoe perfectly. This add is celebrating the 10Th birthday of Viagra from when it was approved by the FDA; but it does not neglect to advertise its use, which is done in a very subtle way and not very relevant image to get its message across. The advertising uses many sings that imply the circumstances where Viagra is used, slow music, the dim candle light that grows progressively, typically represent an intimate moment between two people, usually intercourse; however in this ad there is no representation of people, or the visually effect of what Viagra does, but it somehow manages to tell us that this products is using for enhancing size.

This ad, like all the others we discussed in class follow the same tactic found in products that are connected to sexual life. I would say that this ad, condoms and birth control ads that do not visually represent what they are selling, are a result of creative minds that live in a post-modern world. This type of advertisement usually uses parody or irony as a way to deliver their message, perhaps because it takes pressure off the consumer about being ashamed to want to use it, or admit that they do. In a society where it is taboo to speak of sex freely, or ways to obtain better sex, results from the cultural norm that sex is something to be ashamed of as it is not accepted by social ideologies. Another reason as to why pharmaceuticals approach this method of advertising can be because the use of irony that speaks directly to a more mature audience and prevents the younger audience from thinking that using these products is OK, and therefore abuse it or use it irresponsibly. This ad also takes us back to the beginning of the semester where we spoke of adverting and its signifier. We mentioned before a strategy used by companies, and that is that you do not see the brand name throughout the whole commercial or just for a couple of seconds at the end; which is the case at hand. Concluding the discourse of pharmaceutical advertising, the ad above is a clear representation of strategies used to advertise sex related products, but represent many advertising strategies in general.

Let's Talk About Sex

Being the cyclical insomniac that I am, I realized something after our class discussed advertisements, specifically pharmaceutical commercials involving the issue of sex. Sitting up late at night watching TV one night, I realized that there were a lot more condom commercials being showed than normal. Trojan condoms were the main advertisers, as I had seen about 3 different condom commercials that essentially advertised different things. One condom felt like "nothing was there", another condom had ridges for her pleasure, and another that just made condoms seem like the most joyful and celebrated things in the world. However, something comes to mind; talking about contraceptive pill commercials and how they often fail to acknowledge that they are for birth control and not pimples, extreme PMS or bad cramps, I realized the same trend was occurring in condom ads. Though the condom ads I viewed talked about condoms and their benefits, upgraded and re-worked with so many elements that everyone should be able to find one that works for them specifically, they failed to mention one key thing--that they are for (gasp) birth control and pregnancy and STI prevention. The main reason why millions of people choose to take part in using condoms is essentially not discussed in these ads anymore. In my opinion, this can mislead many young people engaging in sexual activities for some of their first times by failing not to address the main reason why people should be wearing condoms. Discussing the pleasure benefits of them without any other information makes condoms seem as only an option and not a necessity. So to all of you reading this, do not let these misinforming commercials deter you from what the real purpose of condoms are. And remember - wrap it up and be safe!

Fetus Ads

It's amazing how advertising companies relate life (fetus) to anything these days. Starting from the volvo commercial mentioned in class to the hard rock I am about to discuss. To be honest, I am not really sure why hard rock cafe chose this picture of a pregnant lady and the fetus's hands imprinted against the mother's belly, but it just caught my eye. It just reminded me about the conversation we had in class about how our body being a spectacle. It is interesting to see how much we don't care about our bodies being on display unless it isn't our body. As long as it is not mine and my families I am okay seeing other peoples body. I honestly didn't know the human exhibit bodies were Chinese people. For some reason when I saw the exhibit for the first time, I automatically thought that people consented and gave permission to use their body for the exhibition. I guess it's because if my body were to be on display like the way it is in the exhibit, I would expect someone to ask for my permission.

Quickly going back to the hard rock cafe ad, I think the imprint of the fetus represents how alive the cafe is. For instance, all the experience one gets by being at hard rock cafe is very lively and moving. And an experience one will never forget about. I mean if I was pregnant and had a moment where I saw my baby's hands pressed against my belly, I would be freaked out yet it would be one unforgettable moment. Also the pregnant woman represents that hard rock cafe is a family restaurant. It was a very interesting ad to look at and analyze.

International Hip-Hop

Hip-Hop a creation of the Western world, the U.S. to be more specific, has originally expanded throughout the rest of the world by spreading messages that many audiences in developing nations can relate to. As we mentioned this week, it is acknowledge that hip-hop has developed and many argue that it has lost its mother roots; therefore, hip-hop is not to be considered real hip-hop anymore but that has managed to create a category on its own. The new trend noticed in this revolutionized hip-hop is not only that it has adopted a pop undertone but it has also approached a series of repetitive criticism amongst artists to criticize each other through their songs. The trend seems to be who bashes the harshest and who does it in the most clever way; thanks to the capitalist interest that exist among producers who have figure out what sells, besides beats, bashing one another has become a part of making successful records. This bashing happens in many different ways and as we see how each each artist in their culture goes about it, we noticed that the original way of delivery has not changed. It is worth to argue whether hip-hop is dead or not, but a bigger issue is how much it has developed to fit our generation as it has moved along to fit a world that has also revolutionized into a post-modern world. Besides the arguments artist make about the struggles they had to go through, they tend to compare themselves to genre legends to attract more fans as well as setting themselves in history by comparing themselves to great ones that have already made history. This comparison not only happens within the genre but with music legends in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoN6XfyQsr4

The video above features an English artist (dan le sac vs. scroobius pip) that when categorized falls under the hip-hop genre; however they have put their own spin by adding beats that are not categorized as hip-hop. In their song "Thou Shalt Always Kill" they approach counter-hegemonic ideas through their lyrics, which is a characteristic easily recognized of hip-hop. This genre of music mostly composed of counter-hegemonic ideas allows for hip-hop to be very international as it seems that there is at least one person in every area of the world that wants to rebel against the hegemony established. This artist does not speak of personal struggles or clubbing and girls as american hip-hop aritist do, a common factor amongst international hip-hop aritist is that they seem to speak more of global issues or emphasize ignorance regarding taste. When listening to some of the issues dan le sac speaks about in the song above, a questioned is raised regarding America and its music, is not that hip-hop is dead, the argument is that hip-hop is giving their fans what they want; and the problem is that Americans fans are more fixated into having a good time and as analysed in other fields of study, Americans are very particular about foreign news and it is questioned how much they care about what is outside the American bubble. So when caucasian people are criticized for their race and entering a world (hip-hop) that they supposedly do not belong in or can't make good hip-hop because of their race, only goes to show the racism that surrounds this genre of music; because these caucasian artist aren't singing about dealing drugs, getting shot, smoking weed and going to clubs to meet girls, does not make them any less hip-hop aritist. Sure many American artist have fallen into the mainstream world but that only comes along with the greedyness of americans and always wanting more, in this case, more money. I admire Dan Le Sac, although he does approach a very common way for delievering his music, he raps about a reality that fits most people, but at the same time there is plenty of diversity, and that is what hip-hop is, reality and diversity.

American Boy

After listening to the Estelle's song, "American Boy," for the 500th time, i listened to it with a different perspective. After reading Lipsitz's article on hip hop and the diaspora, there are certain cultural elements in American hip hop that have invoked a global movement to change. As Estelle is describing this American boy, she is describing most Americans who identify with the hip hop culture. They wear their baggy jeans, go to MIA concerts, and wear sneakers looking 'fresh to death". There is a defined hip hop culture that started in America and has worked its way across the world. After characterizing this American boy, it is obvious that most of the world sees hip hop culture like this. While it might have started out as a form of rebellion with Afrika Bambaataa and Zulu Nation, it has become another trend that is not defined the urgency of social change. It is now a style; a way of life. When Kanye and Jay-Z sing about the tough times they lived it, it is hard to take them seriously when they make an absurd amount of money for doing something as mundane as making an appearance at a basketball tournament. Hip hop, something that was once considered an "indie" genre of music, now is infested with artists who talk about bitches and hoes and getting crunk. And while there are a few artists in the genre of music who stay true to the origins of hip hop and follow Queen Latifah and Bambaataa, most of the artists these days do not inspire the hip hop that Bambaataa inspired globally. Now in France and the UK, the rap artists and hip hop artists are trying to replicate the pop hip hop that is successful in the U.S. Even in Estelle, a british singer, describes this American hip hop phenomenon as a trend that people want to be apart, not a struggle they want to highlight.