Just Looking ...

Kalmar suggested in class today that humans exhibit herd behavior, and maybe even share a collective unconscience. It is undeniable that people are influenced by their culture in how they chose to dress, and what products they consume. I always would have assumed this was a conscious, individual decision. But the idea of a collective unconscience didn't seem THAT crazy to me this morning, in light of something i heard earlier this week about sleep and light exposure.

In the same way i knew i was influenced by my peers, i accepted that patterns of light and dark determined the rythm of my day. i thought this was more or less a conscious decision until learning about the "third eye," a clump of sensors in the center of your forehead that register patterns of light and dark. when sensory experience is limited by blocking out these sensors, an organisms circadian rythm (their sleep and metabolic patterns) go all to hell, even if they can still actually see light and dark.
So having already had one illusion of personal autonomy smashed this week, i felt quite open to the second.
disclaimer - i am not a science student. this third eye business was explained to me by my sister, who's a vet tech with a zoology degree from guelph. i glanced at some google sites to try and learn more, but a lot of it seems very hocus pocus to me. so if anyone knows more, PLEASE respond.

I know this was a topic discussed last semester, but I felt it was interesting and may be good for review.

The other day I was in the movie theatre when I saw an advertisement that I thought very much represented the third phase of the relationship between the image and basic reality: image masking the absence of basic reality. The product is not mentioned until after a minute and twenty seconds of a gorilla drumming along to a Phil Collins song. This is very much a postmodern advertisement that I have a hard time associating with chocolate bars. I am not quite sure how this advertisement reflects the chocolate bar, but I would love to hear your opinions.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=x8obTzo418g

I thought I'd post a few more Benetton ads - ones that I felt were good examples of the themes we discussed today in tutorial. If anyone is interested, the Benetton website gives the history of the campaign: http://press.benettongroup.com/ben_en/about/campaigns/history/

and the following website has further information about the photographer, Olivero Toscani, and the controversies that surrounded his work for Benetton: http://www.ciadvertising.org/studies/student/98_fall/theory/blouin/toscani/toscani.html

I tried to find the picture of the Black woman dressed as the Queen that Anna mentioned during tutorial, but wasn't able to find it. Maybe one of you will have better luck? In the meantime, I hope you find these pics to be interesting - I know I did!

So I asked a friend of mine who is Korean what this 1.5 generation means.

Basically it is newcomers that are the 1.5. There is the first generation who are immigrants and have lived in a new country for an extended period (approximately 3yr+) and the second who are born into the new country.
The 1.5 are those who are very recent; immigrants who have resided in the new country for a very short period (approximately 3yr-).
So they are people who still are in a very liminal/transitional space (not quite here, not quite there).

Just a thought...
I think this is very relevant to what Prof. K. was saying in terms of time travel - often for new immigrants that are coming to a new country (but not always as i will try to stray away from gross generalizations) come to said country (lets use Canada as the example) for more opportunity - Think development discourse, which divides the worlds into developed (or 1st world) and developing (third world). The numbering is not arbitrary - it's like this race to development (moving as Kalmar said at a rate of tech advancement that is too quick) with the 1st as the leaders and the rest trailing behind (or like K. said in a time warp). The new immigrants are moving to the developed world to seek more "opportunity" - to become more like the developed (but this is oversimplification as w/ globalization there is a two way feedback).

So i guess what i am asking is - Can new immigrants been seen as time travelers (in the temporal and spatial sense)??

Baudrillard, and his orders of simulacra, have interested me a great deal. I read some more of his ideas, and am in the middle of his very short book The Ecstasy of Communication (1987). I don't think we covered this notion last term, though I could be mistaken. In pink lettering on the book's backcover, is a quote from Baudrillard:
"Obscenity begins when there is no more spectacle, no more stage, no more theatre, no more illusions, when everything becomes immediately transparent, visible, exposed in the raw and inexorable light of communication. We are no longer in the drama of alienation, but are in the ecstasy of communication."

We live in a society in which there is an excess of information. To a large degree I believe this was facilitated by television. People now watched the daily "news", which reported on all of the significant world events. We were also swamped by TV commercials and advertisements in newspapers and magazines, which were meant to address every conceivable human need, and therefore appeared to encompass the breadth of the human experience. Nowadays, with the advance of telecommunications and the pervasiveness of the internet, there have been claims that we live in an "information age". This seems evident enough, but what of the consequences? Where is the real when all we experience is mediated as information?

I have disliked television for some time, and Baudrillard's arguments do not offer me relief in this regard. Let us consider the example of CP24 (CityTV). On the screen we are bombarded by images, data, and symbols, which I believe condition us, regulate us, and numb us to the real. Sports scores appear and disappear at the bottom of the screen, and stock market values flit past the eye, along with "real time" footage of traffic on the Don Valley Parkway and the 401. One third of the screen is devoted to news coverage in the conventional sense, with talking heads, sensationalized stories, sports reports and rehashed, edited news reports from home and abroad. I frequently access CP24 to check the day's weather forecast, and am confronted by symbols of either a "rainy" cloud, a "snowy" cloud, a cloud with both rain and snow, no cloud, etc. - TV has now prefigured our conceptions of something as varied and complex as the weather into neatly organizable symbols. I can attest that viewing these "weather symbols" does lend me a sense of control over the world, a feeling that I can know everything I need to know about today's weather (and the rest of the week) instantaneoulsy. Will the weatherman be out of a job in the near future?

The ecstasy of communication that all of this entails, is, according to Baurdillard, obscene. It is "the obscenity of that which no longer contains a secret and is entirely soluble in information and communication" (p.22). As I see it, mystery is dead and we have killed it. In my opinion, our society needs an experience of mystery to experience the real, for mystery makes life interesting and worthwhile. However, if this is true, I have no clue how we as a society would go about changing our mediums of communication to make this possible.

this starts with the romance novels we read last week.

while "the most wanted bachelor" was my first endeavor into the world of romance fiction, i think it's pretty obvious (correct me if im wrong) that they rely on traditional gender stereotypes and power relations.

all though they all have character and a story, ultimatly all the men are really strong, powerful and manly. by the same token, in the end all the women (even my practical, hard livin' cowgirl) want to get married. prof. kalmar suggested with the animal metephor, some want to tame and domesticate the wildman; to mix it up, we also determined through the oral sex analysis, that sometimes women are just looking to be dominated.

these themes are a little extreme and probably out of touch. this brought us to the contemporary romantic comedy. while they sometimes convey the same themes, kalmar suggested that an empowered women character is more popular these days. most likely she is still a sex object though, even if she's a smart one; Knocked Up is a good example. because the man is so dedicated, the woman protagonist holds all the cards. she can be wild and irrational, she even ends the relationship a few times. the audience doesn't mind that the male protagonist, seth rogan's character is unemployed, hairy and out of shape. maybe it makes us like him more?

as kalmar pointed out, women's roles have expanded and diversified. we've accepted that women can be ambitious, hard-working, irresponsible about sex, uninterested in relationships, etc. but i think that this film is also a good reflection of more realistic standards for men as well. instead of the usual attractive but insensitive, strong virile stereotype, society is making room for guys that are sensitive, lame, but desirable anyways.

this idea came from a summer film review of one of seth rogan's other movies, Superbad. According to the author, this saga about two teenage boys going to high school party, was a sign of the times and a benchmark in the "masculine revolution" or male rights movement?)

the gender revolution is a double-edged sword. Though we don't always recognise it, while we're allowing our girls to dream bigger, we're also letting our guys loosen up a bit. For some reason we arent celebrating this. but if anyone suggests an international mans day parade, where dudes can celebrate the new opportunities that lay ahead for them - eg. the removed pressure to be the bread-winner, the dictator of a relationship, or the father-knows-best - society should probably get behind them on this.

in closing, i wasn't really moved by "the most wanted bachelor," and im curious to know if anyone found that these books resonated with their idea of a romantic fantasy. brings me to my last question: is it be possible to have romance fiction without the traditional gender roles? how would a romance novel for our generation compare to the ones they sell now, which i think are marketed to our moms? or will romance fiction as we know it survive? just some thoughts...

Two weeks ago while sitting in class listening to the lecture on celebrity images and race I was reminded of the whole "what-race-is-Tiger-Woods" deal and its significance in the media about what kind of "race" he identifies with (which, by the way is "Caublinasian" - see this article: http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/042397/woods.htm). Two particular comedy skits come to mind when I heard his name:

The first skit I thought of was a skit on the comedy sketch show Chappelle's Show with comedian Dave Chappelle. The skit was called "Racial Draft 2004" where the so-called 'ambiguous' race of a number of celebrities, athletes, and politicians were determined either through voting and negotiations. In this skit, Tiger Woods was deemed to be "African American." Here's a clip:

http://www.tv.com/media_player/168/4/viewer.php?context_type=101&context_id=15677&onid=10850&ptid=5005&tag=videos;title;13

The rest of the clip describes how the Caucasians obtained both Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice and, in a hilarious twist, the Asians decide to claim the Wu Tang Clan as their own (picture a bunch of middle-aged and old Asians throwing their hands up in the air and chanting "Wu Tang").


The second skit that cam to mind was a skit from another comedy sketch show, MADtv. In this particular skit, the parody of Tiger Woods continues with a commercial for his new restaraunt, which caters to those of his racial make up: primarily African Americans, Caucasians, and Asians, along with the repeated use of the term "caublasian" as opposed to "caublinasian". Sadly, I could not locate a clip of this video so for those who don't know what I'm talking about, they'll just have to take my word for it.

Enjoy the "Racial Draft 2004"clip!! :D

Charisma is no longer linked to just men. The proof of this can be seen in the current presidential elections in the States. Although male politicians seem to appear more charismatic than women in politics - the same way male celebrities are idolized more than female celebrities; this is changing. A perfect example of this shift is embedded in the one woman whose every move is being watched by America and possibly the rest of the world. No, not Hilary Clinton but rather Britney Spears. The era where thousands of women would swoon over the likes of The Beatles and Elvis Presley are now being replaced by the obsession of young Hollywood women. The entertainment media nowadays focuses more on celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan than on male celebrities such as Brad Pitt (unless he's seen kissing Angelina Jolie) and George Clooney. Charismatic women are on the rise and they come in the form of a train wreck, paparazzi favourite and possibly the next President of the United States.

There was some discussion as to whether or not celebrities exploit their race in order to achieve success? recognition? respect?. In any case, while thinking about this, I immediately thought of the Chonga girls. If you don't know who they are, check out this YouTube video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uVHdqmN7-XE

These two latina teenagers from Miami made up a ditty called "Chongalicious" to the tune of "Fergalicious" to describe the mode of dress and way of acting of some young latin women. Some memorable lines include, "they're always starin' at my booty and my panty line--Chongalicious!". These young women are becoming quasi-celebrities: they have over two million hits on YouTube and were invited to head a parade in Miami this December. What's very interested is that this is undeniably the identification and exploitation of stereotypical aspects of a culture. We also see this in movies such as My Big Fat Greek Wedding, where many viewers identified with the culture, which is what made it memorable.

Is this bad? As the previous poster mentioned, more mixed-race and "ethnic" celebrities are not a coincidence. America (and Canada, of course) have changed a lot since the days when Desi Arnaz on I Love Lucy was all we got. These people are identifying the stereotypes and using them, but in a way I believe is ultimately empowering to them.

Whether the "Chonga Girls" will actually succeed and rise to fame is another question. If the Big Fat Greek Wedding TV series is any indication, you can't keep mining in the same place for long!

Today Professor Kalmar brought up the politics of race, arguing that celebrities are increasingly racially ambiguous in the United States. He provided Micheal Jackson, Tiger Woods, Barack Obama, and Shakira as some examples. I think the appeal of racially ambigious stars can be understood in a few ways.

First of all, racial ambiguity and cross-ethnic identity are on the rise among ordinary people, as well as celebrities. Many North Americans have mixed family heritage, or are in inter-racial relationships. Even those that dont may find that they identify with the popular culture symbols formerly associated with other ethicities, eg. asian and white kids participating in the developpment of hip hop over the last 15 years.

Secondly, because of the history of slavery, imigration and discrimination in the United States, being in the ethnic minority gives a celebrity an unspoken "underdog appeal." We know that being not white in the US places a person, historically, at a disadvantage. But, because they dont ascribe to a particular, finite minority, the appeal is blameless, and generally accessible. There's no finger-pointing to an explicit oppressor, and no exclusive group of fellow oppressees to identify with. We can just happily and vaugly assume that that this person has risen to greatness despite adversity and obstacles in their or their family's past. Furthermore, we are free to hope that we can relate to their story, and draw inspiration from it, which is perhaps a main function of celebrities - their idealised, though perhaps falsely constructed images, serve as role models for normal people to aspire to.

After I read chapter two of What Do Pictures Want?, I started thinking about how we can separate the desire of the image from that of the artist and the spectator? (Mitchel 2005: 46) It surprises me that Mitchel talks so little about the desire of the artists. I am a painter therefore the way I view a work of art might be very different from the way a social theorist or an art historian might look at an artwork. When professor Kalmar was giving a lecture on how images can take a life of their own, I couldn’t help but wonder how we can interpret images without taking into consideration the motives or perspective of the creator. It is important to acknowledge that each one of us interprets works of art based on his/her own historical background, education, and personality type, however, I also believe that the creative vision and intent of the artist is as important as the spectator’s perspective in the analysis of an image.

When we were looking at the Canadian house with an architectural feature, loggia, professor Kalmar suggested that the house wanted us to perhaps appreciate architecture and especially think of Italian architecture. Now is a good time for me to go back to my title and explain why I have chosen this title. This is what the picture wants from professor Kalmar. For professor, based on his education or perhaps his traveling experiences and most importantly his familiarity with Italian architecture, the house represents a familiar tradition in Italian art history and architecture. I agree that pictures want different things from different people. What we see in an image is a complex mixture of what the artist wanted to convey at the moment of creation, and what we perceive based on our own unique experiences.

It is impossible to look at an image and eliminate the artist, because we are looking at that image through his eyes, from the angle that he/she has chosen. We might not see exactly what the artist wanted us to see because our gaze is colored by our unique experiences and backgrounds. For example, as a Persian, the house reminded me of the tabatabaei house which is in Kashan, one of the cities of Iran. This house was built in early 1800s and is an example of traditional Persian architecture. (You can easily find the image of the house if you type Kashan in wikipedia). However, despite my unique “Persian” gaze, my perspective of this photograph was influenced by the angle that the professor had chosen and of course by what he wanted me to see in that picture. I can go on and on but I would stop here and I would really appreciate if you guys can share what you think about the images and their desires, especially what you think about how images can take a life of their own.

Happy New Years everyone!