Today we viewed some of the image slideshows. There was one showing the similarities of America and Canada, and another exhibiting the world of stereotypical alcohol advertisements. In many, I had no idea what the advertisement was even selling, since a picture of a nearly naked woman took over much the screen. When it comes to alcohol, and many other advertisements, they are pretty much trying to sell a specific lifestyle. There was one really unique curation that portrayed how beauty has changed with time for different ethnicities. The slideshow exhibited woman who are Chinese, Spanish, Brazilian, Hindu, African, etc. Woman who were considered beautiful because of their cultural traditions have now been replaced by images created by media. Our idea of beauty is so one-dimensional now, and the slideshow made me realize how different countries can display beauty in all forms.
Mark brought up an important idea today. As he said, “all grammars leak concept”. Meaning, for example, you can never fully tell someone how you feel. Words cannot capture emotions or feelings entirely. A message will somehow loose some of its information when it is passed, similar to playing the game broken telephone.
We also received a handout about The Principles of Perception. I think the whole point of the handout is that our perceptions are based on our inner selves. We learn through time what to perceive, since we are obviously not born perceiving. Perceptions can be called predication, because we need to feel secure and lead ourselves away from uncertainty. Perceptions fulfill our needs, wants, and values.
Works Cited:
“Principles of Perception”. Lipton’s Lecture Notes. Sept 2007.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Understanding Comics
When I bought all of my books for this course, I was the most excited to read “Understanding Comics” by Scott McCloud. What a genious way to talk about comics, and much more for that matter, by actually making it in a comic book format.
Having a box of over 100 Archie comics somewhere in my basement, I was once a big fan of this type of art. I suppose I had moved away from comics once I was a teenager, but I still haven’t moved away from symbolic images and icons. That is pretty much impossible. I think that is what McCloud is trying to prove with this book. There is so much more to comic books than what people usually assume. It is surely a type of art, and there are many secrets that go behind the making of a comic book. Reading it made me want to go back and analyze one of my many Archie comics. Who knows, maybe I’ll read one again for old times sake?
McCloud makes symbolic icons (representing ideas and concepts) and pictorial icons (resembling their subjects) very easy to understand. No wonder comics are so universal and I was always able to choose between being Veronica or Betty. Cartoon images can be stripped down so the meaning is more apparent than the drawing itself. A simple cartoon smiley face can be anyone our minds want it to be.
Looking into the mind and its capabilities are what McCloud explains with the many things humans do to understand a sight-based medium such as comics. Between the panels of comics we make closure, and make sense of what we don’t see. It is something we do all the time in every day life. With colour and lines, we understand motion and emotions. We are even able to grasp the concept of time frames.
Books with pictures should not be considered “childish”. Why must literature and pictures be pushed away from each other? McCloud proves that words and pictures can work together to make an enjoyable, yet informative, work of art.
Works Cited:
McCloud, Scott. Underrstanding Comics. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.
Having a box of over 100 Archie comics somewhere in my basement, I was once a big fan of this type of art. I suppose I had moved away from comics once I was a teenager, but I still haven’t moved away from symbolic images and icons. That is pretty much impossible. I think that is what McCloud is trying to prove with this book. There is so much more to comic books than what people usually assume. It is surely a type of art, and there are many secrets that go behind the making of a comic book. Reading it made me want to go back and analyze one of my many Archie comics. Who knows, maybe I’ll read one again for old times sake?
McCloud makes symbolic icons (representing ideas and concepts) and pictorial icons (resembling their subjects) very easy to understand. No wonder comics are so universal and I was always able to choose between being Veronica or Betty. Cartoon images can be stripped down so the meaning is more apparent than the drawing itself. A simple cartoon smiley face can be anyone our minds want it to be.
Looking into the mind and its capabilities are what McCloud explains with the many things humans do to understand a sight-based medium such as comics. Between the panels of comics we make closure, and make sense of what we don’t see. It is something we do all the time in every day life. With colour and lines, we understand motion and emotions. We are even able to grasp the concept of time frames.
Books with pictures should not be considered “childish”. Why must literature and pictures be pushed away from each other? McCloud proves that words and pictures can work together to make an enjoyable, yet informative, work of art.
Works Cited:
McCloud, Scott. Underrstanding Comics. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
High School All Over Again [Third Lecture]
I had mixed feelings about class today. As nervous as I was to present a CD (which, by the way, is kind of difficult to do when you aren’t even playing any music), I was curious to see the other ways our class viewed media in their lives.
The class was chaotic and I truly do not know how we got through so many people, but it left me with some memorable presentations. There were two in particular that I thought were extremely creative. One was a human stomach, with compartments inside. One section had silly information that she excretes first, such as celebrity gossip. Another had important information that she inhales first. I loved the metaphor and it worked out nicely. Another presentation I enjoyed was the random banana taped to a black bristle board. It was so far from anything I would have thought of and it was something that stood out completely.
So why did I make a CD? Music really does dominate my life, and I feel as though there has constantly been an ongoing soundtrack accompanying the many experiences I have went through. The songs on the CD range from pop music to indie. All of the songs reflect a time in my life when I yearned to fit in or stand out. Music influenced my moods, my activities, etc. Therefore media has forever influenced the person I am.
I noticed a lot of girls did how the media presents woman and body image. Originally I was going to do something similar, but I knew it was a topic that would be well covered. That isn’t to say that I don’t care, considering I could relate to almost everything the girls had to say regarding how media makes them feel about their bodies. It reminded me of the Dove commercial that has been around for some time and I’m sure many have seen, but it still makes me stop what I’m doing to stare in awe and disgust.
I love this commercial for so many reasons. Not only does it help woman realize how fake and distorted beauty is in media, it takes us one step further in understanding. A critical eye is needed when media continues to spew out untruthful information.
The class was chaotic and I truly do not know how we got through so many people, but it left me with some memorable presentations. There were two in particular that I thought were extremely creative. One was a human stomach, with compartments inside. One section had silly information that she excretes first, such as celebrity gossip. Another had important information that she inhales first. I loved the metaphor and it worked out nicely. Another presentation I enjoyed was the random banana taped to a black bristle board. It was so far from anything I would have thought of and it was something that stood out completely.
So why did I make a CD? Music really does dominate my life, and I feel as though there has constantly been an ongoing soundtrack accompanying the many experiences I have went through. The songs on the CD range from pop music to indie. All of the songs reflect a time in my life when I yearned to fit in or stand out. Music influenced my moods, my activities, etc. Therefore media has forever influenced the person I am.
I noticed a lot of girls did how the media presents woman and body image. Originally I was going to do something similar, but I knew it was a topic that would be well covered. That isn’t to say that I don’t care, considering I could relate to almost everything the girls had to say regarding how media makes them feel about their bodies. It reminded me of the Dove commercial that has been around for some time and I’m sure many have seen, but it still makes me stop what I’m doing to stare in awe and disgust.
I love this commercial for so many reasons. Not only does it help woman realize how fake and distorted beauty is in media, it takes us one step further in understanding. A critical eye is needed when media continues to spew out untruthful information.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
What Is Copyright? [Second Lecture]
We began the class by watching an interesting clip about copyright, called “A Fair(y) Use Tale”, using parts of Disney movies.
As the clip mentions, it is in no way a copyright infringement on Disney. The nature of the work and the amount borrowed gives it legal protection. I’m not surprised we watched the clip; it was quite informative given the nature of this program. I always remember my dad saying, “Oh I bet they paid a lot to use that one” whenever musicians’ re-made older songs. I never really understood the world of copyright, but its something I’m going surely going to need to understand.
Mark mentioned two things I wanted to talk about today. First was how different mediums changes the processing of the brain, and essentially reprograms it. He used the example of reading a book versus reading something online. They are definitely two very separate experiences. I always prefer reading a long passage on paper rather than online. The way the world is going, however, I will probably have to become used to reading things online instead of printing them out. I think in thirty years children will receive their text books in disc format and will read all of them on their computer. At least they won’t have the back problems of the generations before them.
Mark also spoke about the four ways in which a person can look at media and culture:
• Media and culture have no relation
• Media determines culture
• Culture determines media
• They mirror each other
I have said before that Postman is a media determinist. He believes the media and its mediums bring upon the culture of today. I tried to think of how I view these four options, and I stand on media and culture mirroring each other. The media would have nothing to work with if it didn’t have different cultures around the world, yet media exaggerates and embellishes to eventually change cultures. New technological advances have changed cultures, but it is still up to us what we do with media. Not everyone reacts in the same way to a message from media, hense why media is different around the world. I don’t think one could completely detemine the other, and to say they have no relation would be illogical.
As the clip mentions, it is in no way a copyright infringement on Disney. The nature of the work and the amount borrowed gives it legal protection. I’m not surprised we watched the clip; it was quite informative given the nature of this program. I always remember my dad saying, “Oh I bet they paid a lot to use that one” whenever musicians’ re-made older songs. I never really understood the world of copyright, but its something I’m going surely going to need to understand.
Mark mentioned two things I wanted to talk about today. First was how different mediums changes the processing of the brain, and essentially reprograms it. He used the example of reading a book versus reading something online. They are definitely two very separate experiences. I always prefer reading a long passage on paper rather than online. The way the world is going, however, I will probably have to become used to reading things online instead of printing them out. I think in thirty years children will receive their text books in disc format and will read all of them on their computer. At least they won’t have the back problems of the generations before them.
Mark also spoke about the four ways in which a person can look at media and culture:
• Media and culture have no relation
• Media determines culture
• Culture determines media
• They mirror each other
I have said before that Postman is a media determinist. He believes the media and its mediums bring upon the culture of today. I tried to think of how I view these four options, and I stand on media and culture mirroring each other. The media would have nothing to work with if it didn’t have different cultures around the world, yet media exaggerates and embellishes to eventually change cultures. New technological advances have changed cultures, but it is still up to us what we do with media. Not everyone reacts in the same way to a message from media, hense why media is different around the world. I don’t think one could completely detemine the other, and to say they have no relation would be illogical.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Amusing Ourselves to Death
While it was grueling to get through the entire book, Neil Postman made some fantastic points in “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business”. I can not say that I agree with his “hard” media determinist viewpoints, but it would be difficult to disagree that public discourse has changed with technology, especially television.
We begin to think and express ourselves in different ways when we are exposed to a new medium. Postman says, “in every tool we create, an idea is embedded that goes beyond the function of the thing itself” (14). With the shift from the magic of writing, to the magic of electronics, humans were automatically introduced to something that would change our culture in ways outside of the obvious.
Postman believes the age of television has presented shriveled and absurd information, while discourse in our print-based past was serious and rational. He uses the example of political debates of the past, where the audience could sit and listen for hours on end. The audience had longer attention spans compared to those of today, and understood complex thoughts and speeches. I agree with his thoughts completely, considering hours of political debating would be torturous for me. I do not view the people of the past to necessarily be “smarter” than those of today, but our mode of thought has definitely changed.
Postman moves on to talk about how the telegraph led to the rise of irrelevant information. People were exposed to news that hardly related to them, and therefore had so much information and nothing to do with it. It is ironic because in today’s society, some one who is not informed about what is happening in the world is said to be ignorant.
There is one point, however, that Postman fails to render my views on. Postman calls photography a “fierce assault” on language. Why is it negative for a photograph to speak a thousand words? Why can it not accompany, rather than compete, with written word? A photograph can show something that may not be easy to express in words. A photograph can be concise when conveying a message.
In a television word, Postman believes newscasters are beautiful people that mislead us with entertainment. Although I do agree that the news does seem very schizophrenic in the way it deals out information, there are news outlets that provide news that is necessary. Of course there has been hard news that has been sensationalized, but television is a way many people hear about timely and local news. Newspapers are essentially about yesterday, while television is quick enough to talk about today.
Politics, Religion, and education are three institutions Postman says have changed in their public discourse due to television. Politics has lost its seriousness, Religion has lost its “enchantment”, both replaced by entertainment. Growing up as a Sesame Street kid, Postman says that I have basically learned how to watch television, not count to ten. It is a difficult concept to accept, considering I feel as though I have learned at least some things from television shows. Postman goes on to say that the school curriculum is being threatened by television because students expect entertainment in the classroom. I do agree with this, and teachers who understand this concept are usually able to captivate students with ease.
Fast forward to the present (considering this book was written over 20 years ago). Although he barely touched upon the topic of the Internet, mainly because it was still considered a baby in the early 80s, I am curious to know what Postman would think about the growing popularity of the World Wide Web. Personally, I am now on a computer more than I watch TV. I also believe the Internet provides us with much more information than television. Of course not all of it is true, and the Internet is still a great medium for entertainment, but is it a completely different experience. People can focus on a story for as long as necessary while on a computer, instead of being told when to stop, which happens with television. Similarly to how television changed our culture and the way people think, I believe the Internet is slowly doing the same by reprogramming our brains.
Works Cited:
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin Books, 1985.
We begin to think and express ourselves in different ways when we are exposed to a new medium. Postman says, “in every tool we create, an idea is embedded that goes beyond the function of the thing itself” (14). With the shift from the magic of writing, to the magic of electronics, humans were automatically introduced to something that would change our culture in ways outside of the obvious.
Postman believes the age of television has presented shriveled and absurd information, while discourse in our print-based past was serious and rational. He uses the example of political debates of the past, where the audience could sit and listen for hours on end. The audience had longer attention spans compared to those of today, and understood complex thoughts and speeches. I agree with his thoughts completely, considering hours of political debating would be torturous for me. I do not view the people of the past to necessarily be “smarter” than those of today, but our mode of thought has definitely changed.
Postman moves on to talk about how the telegraph led to the rise of irrelevant information. People were exposed to news that hardly related to them, and therefore had so much information and nothing to do with it. It is ironic because in today’s society, some one who is not informed about what is happening in the world is said to be ignorant.
There is one point, however, that Postman fails to render my views on. Postman calls photography a “fierce assault” on language. Why is it negative for a photograph to speak a thousand words? Why can it not accompany, rather than compete, with written word? A photograph can show something that may not be easy to express in words. A photograph can be concise when conveying a message.
In a television word, Postman believes newscasters are beautiful people that mislead us with entertainment. Although I do agree that the news does seem very schizophrenic in the way it deals out information, there are news outlets that provide news that is necessary. Of course there has been hard news that has been sensationalized, but television is a way many people hear about timely and local news. Newspapers are essentially about yesterday, while television is quick enough to talk about today.
Politics, Religion, and education are three institutions Postman says have changed in their public discourse due to television. Politics has lost its seriousness, Religion has lost its “enchantment”, both replaced by entertainment. Growing up as a Sesame Street kid, Postman says that I have basically learned how to watch television, not count to ten. It is a difficult concept to accept, considering I feel as though I have learned at least some things from television shows. Postman goes on to say that the school curriculum is being threatened by television because students expect entertainment in the classroom. I do agree with this, and teachers who understand this concept are usually able to captivate students with ease.
Fast forward to the present (considering this book was written over 20 years ago). Although he barely touched upon the topic of the Internet, mainly because it was still considered a baby in the early 80s, I am curious to know what Postman would think about the growing popularity of the World Wide Web. Personally, I am now on a computer more than I watch TV. I also believe the Internet provides us with much more information than television. Of course not all of it is true, and the Internet is still a great medium for entertainment, but is it a completely different experience. People can focus on a story for as long as necessary while on a computer, instead of being told when to stop, which happens with television. Similarly to how television changed our culture and the way people think, I believe the Internet is slowly doing the same by reprogramming our brains.
Works Cited:
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin Books, 1985.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Introductions [First Lecture]
Mass Communication. I had heard the most about this class long before I had even stepped into my first day at Guelph-Humber. It wasn’t so much about the course load, but rather, about the professor. Mark Lipton seemed to be one of the favourites among the older students. Everyone said the class was absolutely amazing, but to be prepared for a lot of work. And I mean a lot. I figured it wouldn’t be too bad. I mean, this is what I love to learn, right?
Wednesday’s class was not at all what I expected. Actually to tell you the truth, I didn’t really know what to expect. When we were handed the course syllabus, I definitely got nervous. It wasn’t so much the readings or papers, but the group work. I had had my share of lousy group members in high school, and was not in the mood for a repeat performance. Mark talked about how we shouldn’t look at each other as competition, but to work together as much as possible. When we’re all out of university, there are going to be a lot more people striving to get where we want to be.
Mark sparked my interest mainly because he seems to have such a profound love for anything media. He’s not trying to make us believe certain things, just putting everything out on the table and letting us decide. He spoke about the ecology of media, and how an environment where a culture grows is a medium. Media starts by looking at a specific medium. He used the analogy: a technology is to a medium as the brain is to the mind. Mark spoke about how one invention can chance a culture, whether positively or negatively. This made me think about the invention of cell phones. They evolved from the regular house phone, making communication much more easier. You can talk to anybody, anytime. They are great in emergencies, and come with dozens of features. I have one that is turned on and with me at all times of the day. On the flip side, they can be absolutely annoying, not to mention dangerous. Driving while on a cell phone has led to accidents, there have been students who cheat on tests via text messaging, and there is no such thing as perfect signal, all the time. It can be extremely annoying to hear about one’s love affairs while on a crowded subway, or to hear a cell ring in the middle of an interesting lecture. As good as a cell phone may be, it is in no way a perfect invention.
Mark mentioned entropy, and how all things tend towards chaos. I can already tell this class will be chaotic. If anything, it just makes me more excited to begin.
Wednesday’s class was not at all what I expected. Actually to tell you the truth, I didn’t really know what to expect. When we were handed the course syllabus, I definitely got nervous. It wasn’t so much the readings or papers, but the group work. I had had my share of lousy group members in high school, and was not in the mood for a repeat performance. Mark talked about how we shouldn’t look at each other as competition, but to work together as much as possible. When we’re all out of university, there are going to be a lot more people striving to get where we want to be.
Mark sparked my interest mainly because he seems to have such a profound love for anything media. He’s not trying to make us believe certain things, just putting everything out on the table and letting us decide. He spoke about the ecology of media, and how an environment where a culture grows is a medium. Media starts by looking at a specific medium. He used the analogy: a technology is to a medium as the brain is to the mind. Mark spoke about how one invention can chance a culture, whether positively or negatively. This made me think about the invention of cell phones. They evolved from the regular house phone, making communication much more easier. You can talk to anybody, anytime. They are great in emergencies, and come with dozens of features. I have one that is turned on and with me at all times of the day. On the flip side, they can be absolutely annoying, not to mention dangerous. Driving while on a cell phone has led to accidents, there have been students who cheat on tests via text messaging, and there is no such thing as perfect signal, all the time. It can be extremely annoying to hear about one’s love affairs while on a crowded subway, or to hear a cell ring in the middle of an interesting lecture. As good as a cell phone may be, it is in no way a perfect invention.
Mark mentioned entropy, and how all things tend towards chaos. I can already tell this class will be chaotic. If anything, it just makes me more excited to begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)