Globalization

From The Care and Feeding of Ideas (New York: Times Books/Random House, 1993):

"In that moment . . . [I] began to see a bottle of Coca-Cola as more than a drink. . . . [I] began to see the familiar words, "Let's have a Coke" as . . . actually a subtle way of saying, "Let's keep each other company for a little while." And [I] knew they were being said all over the world as [I] sat there in Ireland. So that was the basic idea: to see Coke not as it was originally designed to be—a liquid refresher—but as a tiny bit of commonality between all peoples, a universally liked formula that would help to keep them company for a few minutes."

Globalization is about the function and exchange of ideologies, on cultural, industrial, economical and social levels between countries and continents. Marshal McLuchan coined the phrase ‘Global Village’ and discussed our age/our world as one having more communal access and exposure to ideas and ideologies through mass forms of communication and technologies, visual language being key to this exchange.

But really here, we’re talking about mainly Western ideologies spreading throughout the world. The concept of globalization can be traced back to early Western colonization. Though not so much now about the adoption of Western values in terms of religion and law in other countries as it is about cultural influence and big business, the pros and cons of globalization and our current world state can still be considered in similar terms.

McLuhan’s notions of the Global Village being a conceptual place where the world in all its various arrays of cultures, backgrounds, geography etc, can converge to share, communicate and unify, seems pretty great – BUT just as a single society has its hegemony - dominant ideologies working to stay on top as Gramsci suggested, so then does the Global Village reflect this. With the rise of monster (mostly Western-based) corporations spanning the globe that own, produce and distribute their products, services and ideas, branding has become a vital part of business and the pursuit of profit and again visual language does this the best. Therefore Western ideologies overpower and dominate, taking away or homogenizing the uniqueness of other cultures. This can be seen as a kind of Imperialism (though not as bloody and violent as the “West vs. the Rest’ colonization of centuries ago).

Other cultures can still hold fast to their own beliefs, values, customs and traditions (sense of identity, ‘self’)– though it seems to be increasingly difficult to do this with mass media and new technologies infiltrating all parts of the planet. Those massive corporations OWN mass media and control these new technologies, so who can escape? Every culture has its own sense of progression but it’s a bit scary to think of how globalization can pressure a culture to ‘keep up’, to get connected. Globalization implies a status quo that all cultures need to meet, just to be a part of it all. And this is why you see battery-powered tv sets in remote African villages with no running water, or electricity. This is not good.

It’s a great thing to have commonalities between cultures – this makes for better communication and you’d hope then, better relations. This isn’t always the case unfortunately. Take for example, international air travel. Globalization on the one hand has made for easier world travel (in the physical sense of having modern comforts, convenience in time and choices and in the homogenizing of these particular technologies from one country to the next). On the other hand, with a now global need for security it has become harder to travel because of suspicions and distrust between individuals based on culture and differing ideologies, therefore allowance into a country can be very difficult (immigration) even though technologies have improved.

Then again, when people of one culture relocate to another, this diaspora brings a greater understanding of both cultures, which is always a good thing. It is becoming easier to relocate to another country and still maintain your roots thanks to globalization – Canada and especially Toronto are good examples of this.

Some cultures are doing very well in retaining their uniqueness and keeping their people connected all around the world. Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2001) is a great example of how the Inuit peoples have taken technology (film) and have made something special, to spread their stories through a 'global' medium literally around the world - the film went to and won at Cannes and was Canada's official entry for a foreign Oscar. Zacharias Kunuk the director has an office in Montreal, but his base is still Inuktituk, and he is busy making more films that share the stories of his particular culture - for an international audience eager to learn about this mysterious culture.

I have to say something here in regards to diaspora, hybridity, transnationalism – The World Cup that just happened – I live in Little Portugal right now and MAN, what a passionate, proud people! It was incredible to live and be amongst the excitement as Portugal kept winning and to get caught up in the celebration of what transnationalism can be about. It really DID feel like I was in another country for a month, a non-stop party country….

Which leads me to my formative years growing up in Parkdale, Toronto. Canada is known for its multiculturalism, and certainly Toronto has got to be one of the most multicultural cities in the world – and Parkdale has got to be one of the most multi-ed neighbourhoods of them all. I’m EXTREMELY proud to be a Parkdalian – my family moved from Mississauga (Mississausage I like to call it), when I was 7 at the end of the 1970’s. So we were a white-bread middle class family – Mom, Dad, boy, girl, dog and car, comfortable and regular. We moved into a beautiful old run-down (and I mean almost unliveable) 120 yr old Victorian treasure – a HUGE change for us. Mom and Dad taught themselves what they needed to know to renovate – so many young middle class families were moving back into the city at this time, snapping up cheap housing and renovating – Parkdale was truly skid row back then – many houses were falling apart, poverty everywhere like we’d never seen in the ‘Burbs, and tons of refugees from all walks of life who had literally fled their countries to save their lives. There were many broken families and extended families all living together in squishy apartments on Jamieson Ave. – many of my friends didn’t know the fate of close family members ‘back home’ which they had to leave – and they still went about their lives here matter-of-factly, adjusting to a new poverty, or adjusting to new discriminations, adjusting to this country’s laws, politics, culture, finding a place for their religions, customs, and getting their educations and doing normal kid stuff too – it boggled my mind. It really impressed me and also taught me not to take my own ‘boring’ comforts for granted.

But see, the fact that every kid seemed to be going through all this stuff except boring old Cdn kid – me – I felt out of place! There was a camaraderie amongst many of my friends that I could not be a part of – they spoke other languages and in many cases had whole other social circles connected to their religions and cultures – and I wasn’t included and I did indeed feel left out a lot of the time. So it was an interesting perspective for me to grow up Canadian, yet having my own sense of displacement (albeit waaaaaaaaaaaaay less than my friends in the bigger sense but having a sense nonetheless). I grew up with a built in ‘tolerance’ (don’t like that term) of the ‘other’. I grew up wanting to travel and always starting new friendships with the assumption of difference and a positive interest in what made us different.

The neighbourhood was predominantly Italian, Portuguese, Polish and Chinese when we were very young, but by high school there was a huge influx of East and West Indian, African, Vietnamese, Middle Eastern. I was one of the few white kids in my graduating class. My Mom still works in my old high school – not long after I graduated, there came many Tibetan kids and then Roma kids (thefts in the school skyrocketed!).

Anyways, my point is that Parkdale gave me an amazing perspective. I had a window into customs, histories, and religions, FOODS, rites of passage of many other places far far away that I might never have known if not for my neighbourhood. It helped me to appreciate Canada’s and Toronto’s culture all the more in more personal terms.

That annoying little nerd and one of my own

Can anyone hear me now? Does anyone care?

Wow, just like life!

There always seems to be an assortment of babes to choose from - blond, brunette, redhead, curly hair, straight hair, short hair, long hair, black, white, asian - but always thin with boobs, no variations on THAT. And the Axe ad defines what each women is 'into'. Oh yeah fellas, you spritz yourself with a bit o' Tag or Axe cologne, and you can have your pick - or have a go at all of 'em! They're clearly desperate enough! They're clearly all here on earth just for you, boys. I'd just like to see how 'Tag-Boy' handles himself the morning after....not smellin' too good I'd bet, that teen pregnancy...

Human?

I respond to the top row, especially the third one in -- the ONLY GENUINE looking smile of the bunch! Maybe attaining 'ideal' beauty really means taking AWAY the human. The bottom row - she is blank, lacking expression. Whooopa-dee-dooo.

Thungaverramush

Amazing, eh - that after almost 50 years I could still give this velvet painting to some one who had never heard of "Amer-eee-cah" and say, "find out who this guy is" and pretty well sum up the whole place.

http://www.thevelvetstore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=vs02&Product_Code=ve038

Rules rules rules! Bah!

"Though technically digital art may be any art created using other media or processes, and then digitally scanned, the term is usually reserved for art that has been non-trivially modifed by a computing process. This particular image was created with POV-Ray 3.6 using radiosity. The glasses, ashtray and pitcher were modeled with Rhino and the dice with Cinema 4D. The entire image took 560 hours to render." Photo credit: Gilles Tran/Deadcode

	GENERAL GUIDELINES
	The following links describe important things to remember when preparing digital art for submission to Cadmus Professional Communications.
		Acceptable resolutions		Scanned Images
		Color space requirements		Internet graphics
		Cropping and sizing		Multipanel figures
		Font Usage		Supported applications
		Total Ink Density

The Wondersh of Schiencsh!

Oh, crazy Dr. Gunther van Hagens...I had to see Bodyworlds TWICE when it was here, I'm that fascinated with the weirdness - and the bodies are fascinating too. People donate themselves for plastination and Dr. Gunther puts them in whimsical poses for all eternity. Do donators get to decide how they are to be posed for all eternity? Probably not. Anyhoo, what's creepy in this for me is not the lack of skin or the guts or the sickly salmon coloured tissue, or the eerie 'sliced deli meat' appearance of the cross sections....it's the fact that these people are literally stripped of their identities, and Dr. Gunther decides what their new identities will be so we can all stare at them. They are his skinless mannequins. Dirty bird.



Pass the ether bong, bro...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46032

How have different sciences used visual representation as the proof or evidence of 'truth', and why might this be problematic?

The invention and prevalent use of photography during the age of Modernity, especially to support science, medicine and research, though a meaningful way to document in terms of history, was often misused in the name of objectivity, reason and truth. Photography, being a visual technology and mechanism of representation, implied an unbiased reproduction of reality. Images made and studied with this false objectivity were assumed to be in support of logic and reason and therefore scientists and researchers could depend upon it to aid and support theories in practice. The photographic documentation of these practices recorded a progress, uncovering fresh knowledge and ways of seeing/looking like never before. The X-Ray machine for example, gave doctors and the world a new perspective of the human body never known before and initiated more intensive research and study of how body organs functioned while in the living body (as opposed to only being dissected from cadavers prior to this).

This led to a new wave in thinking – Positivism (as coined by modern sociologist Auguste Compte), whereby humanity no longer worried themselves with WHY things happened, but rather HOW they happened – the x-ray and photographic documentation allowed for the deeper investigation into the inner workings of the body, to find the bigger truths through ‘better’ forms of observation.

From this point sprung forth the fascinatingly bizarre work of the likes of Eadweard Muybridge, Jean-Martin Charcot, Herbert Spencer, John Beddoe, Sir Francis Galton, Alphonse Bertillion to name a few…

Muybridge: used photography to study motion in people and animals *his male and female subjects were instructed to do vastly different activities – the men being more athletic and the women more docile, domestic type actions. Men and women weren’t so much observed then as they were instructed and constructed.

Charcot: Fr neurologist who studied ‘hysteria’ women, composing very deliberate portraits of before and after images of reformed ladies.

Spencer: believed in the survival of the fittest and applied this to race as well as the measuring of abnormalities to determine what was ‘normal’.

Beddoe: wrote The Races of Man, 1862 – and measured the ‘levels’ of particular races in individuals (i.e. ‘nigressence’), believing it could determine one’s intelligence.

Galton: Eugenicist – he felt not every race should be encouraged to reproduce. Used photography to document common ‘criminal’ features in ne’er do wells.

Bertillion: Also used photography to measure and document criminals – developed filing cards close to our mug shots today.

Visual technologies create their own messages through their medium (i.e. the ‘truth’ or validity of a photograph lies in its frozen capture of a moment in time while video’s ‘truth’ is in its movement). Visual technologies are ways to document ideas, but are not all encompassing, completely accurate, exact reflections of reality and truth. They are representations – which we know hold different meanings for everyone. Clearly the gentlemen mentioned above had their own interesting concepts of reality and what should be considered ‘normal’ with very specific agendas…..yowzas!

Photography, x-rays and later new technology including ultrasound, provide specific ways of looking, and are always applied with bias, whether it be intentional or not. Therefore images are never fully objective as long as a human being is part of the process of making them, or part of the invention of visual technologies, or part of the viewing of images. Meaning is in everything - no two people see something in exactly the same way, therefore scientific research is ALWAYS skewed.

Clever Kate

K, so the first is Kate Moss back in '93 - doll-like, innocent, fresh. Her eyes look just above the camera as if she doesn't quite 'register' - so, every man's desire, right?

Well, a few rock n' roll years later and a bit o' drug rehab, some lost modelling contracts and a stinky bad musician boyfriend and here's Kate - her big comeback - back in vogue ON Vogue. And I like (laugh) what Vogue (Fabien Baron) has to say about her:

"We like Kate because there’s an idea of danger about her. We weren’t going to throw the rocks at her because she got into some trouble. It must’ve been really, really hard for her and I’m proud that French Vogue, and Vogue as a brand, supported her through this. It was honorable of us and very responsible for her to deal with things and to put herself where she is today.”

"Honorable of us"?!? Wow, Vogue....

Right....so....would Kate have graced the cover of Vogue today if she had been a good girl? Naw- no way. They've made her look like a super sex heroine in cape and all for cripes sakes! She's in action, hair blowing, in control and dominant, even taking possession of the magazine cover's "G" like she owns the damn thing - she's in total command of her life today....what a role model! S'cuse me while a vomit a bit in my.....ooooh, oops, wait. That is SO 1993.....

News Today

Man, I’m so ignorant to what’s happening ‘over there’. Who started what, who stands for what – there’s no right or wrong side for me, just a whole lotta nothing making sense and blown up bits and pieces of what they all so passionately want. And when you innocently search on the Internet for information – you have to remind yourself that what comes up is somebody’s truth, not everyone’s:

http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah3.htm
Heh, ok – whoa?!

My friend sent me this in response:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=77029&d=29&m=7&y=2006

And this, an interesting take on Iraq:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14267.htm

I’m amazed how easy it is to see what’s literally happening over there, I mean violence-wise. Easy to see, but incredibly hard to LOOK. Why bother with tv?

http://lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/2006/07/warning-strong-pictures.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060721&articleId=2787

Insanity. These pics are too…what…there are no words for it – too much for me to post here obviously – disrespectful, in this context, this soon. But the power of a photograph – the immediacy of it here just bowls me over. You know this stuff is happening, you hear about horrendous stuff like this happening in one way or another, all over the world, all the time – and the fact that the Middle East is always, has always been in conflict – it all blurs over, people stop standing out. But then it takes just one picture to make you feel even a tinge of the horror and fear these poor souls must feel. And that’s much more than enough when you see this. Civilians burnt, civilians mutilated, civilian child in unimaginable, graphic pain….it goes on and on and on.

Well, what to say here….maybe I can say something about blogging. I chose a blog for this assignment because it is essentially a virtual diary and a very easy, cohesive way to talk about visual culture. It’s a strange concept – posting a diary for public consumption – but perfect for this project – to help me to absorb and contextualize and apply what I’m learning in this course – in an accessible format. The blog is for folks who have something to say or share, that they may not have the forum for anywhere else. It’s a place to criticize, to rant, to muse and ponder, to post family photos or keep in touch with friends when you travel. It’s a place to safely (anonymously) challenge societal norms or dominant ideologies, to be as weird as you need to be in a controlled context, easily consumed. We don’t talk as much face to face – in coffee shops or over the fence – the blog is replacing it, and for the younger set, well, virtual communication is almost all they know.

And I remember when Baghdad was first bombed in March of 2003 – I found a blog – no pictures, just broken translated English whenever this guy’s internet connection and power worked, which was less and less each day. He was stuck in Baghdad, hiding. It was the one and only personal connection I felt in regards to that War. I felt very strange coming across it, like I was imposing. But I had to remind myself, as deeply personal as they can be, blogs are for public consumption….like a broken-locked diary left lying around with its owner out of sight, inviting you to peek?

Uh...when do we get our guns?

Canadian armed forces site:

http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/engraph/home/index_e.aspx?bhcp=1

A very ‘government’-looking site. BLaaaaAH.
All about jobs – job security, career options and versatility in training, gaining skills in a cross-platform context. Not a whip about serving your country, fighting or anything particularly ‘military’ – no distinctions stated about the different kinds of service (army, airforce, navy, reserves)

“The Canadian Forces: Find more than 100 job choices — from dental technician to IT specialist to infantry soldier to engineer.” Right…oh yeah, better mention soldiers…


American armed forces sites:

http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp

“Go Army”, “Paths of Strength”, “Unsung heroes” – plays up the patriotism and serving your country. All about ‘readiness’, preparing for the future while giving young people a ‘better’ future by serving in the army. Heh, ‘preserving peace’….yeah right.

It is surprisingly less ‘Go Army Go!’ than I expected – I thought I’d be pummeled with schmaltzy USA superfantastic yay! bull-hooey, but not so much.

Though this is considerably creepier, ha, just for fun:

http://www.armedforcescareers.com/

Oooh, bingo…..and this:

http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/engraph/home/index_e.aspx?bhcp=1

The Few. The Proud. The Marines.
“When discipline is present, it is evident. The precise control of every aspect of one’s self, mental and physical. It is the bedrock of success.” (A bunch of marines all decked out in their finest, holding their guns criss-cross, looking sharp)

“The brave have always defined what the rest of us wish to be. But bravery is misunderstood. It is not the absence of fear, but the will to overcome it.” (Black and white grainier image of marines in combat, climbing over rubble)

“A powerful mind is the best weapon a marine can possess.” (Marine in combat on the ground with helicopters flying overheard)

Nice flash, good sound effects. Reads like a serious film opening that should star Matt Damon. Geez, they must have a LOT of money. Hell, sign me on up!

Oh, wait, hold on.....forget that -- this looks WAAAY cooler!

American Apparel Shmata style...

http://www.nextbook.org/cultural/feature.html?id=184

Their product isn't even featured in this ad - they assume the consumer is savvy enough they'll recognize the formal composition and of course the usual font typical to AA ads - it'll seem familiar and they'll look further and say to themselves, "Gee, if AA makes my baby thermal hot shorts with the same kind of particular attention as this dude does with his...uh...plain black un-sexy suits, then I'm all over this!" But really, Hasidic man does seem hip in this context - he is a specialist, he's unique to us (AA consumer). So even though AA brand is not unique, identifying themselves with someone who is different to the restavus sheep consumers takes them out of the norm and ups AA's 'hep' factor, even though 'shmata' is sorta derogatory. Dang them!

Frankly, I feel a bit weird thinking of my cute little baby blue terry cloth bikini seeing this. For once they de-sexed an ad and are referring instead to the specificity and pride in their product. AA seems to flit between these two concepts: 'regular' sexiness (models aren't professional and look like you and me except waaaaay hornier) and a throwback kinda down-home pride in the product.

Nonetheless, their colours DO streak badly and fade quickly, especially reds and blues - ha ha American colours!!

Q & A's

1. Define the term ideology and explain how it can effect production of images. Provide an example.

Ideology is the societal construct of meanings attached to an image or text or object. It is a naturalization of societal constructs. Ideologies can be encoded in images either deliberately or not by their producers. Ideologies can also be decoded by the viewer of the image, but a viewer’s societal/cultural/political background influence’s how the viewer reads these ideological meanings. An ideology may be represented in an image that gives the viewer a sign of how society as a whole might standardize things.

For example, a viewer looking at a glamorous woman on the cover of Good Housekeeping magazine will see perhaps a societal ‘ideal’ of what a ‘Good Housekeeper’ of today should look like. The viewer may take this image for granted as a societal norm and readily accept this as a standard of their society, even if they personally cannot relate because they are male, not rich or glamorous and happen to be a very good housekeeper themselves!

2. How is Gramsci’s idea of hegemony different than Marx’s idea of ideology, and are there any similarities between the two?

Gramsci’s notion of hegemony refers to society’s dominant ideology being in constant flux with the needs and progressions of that given society. The dominant ideology may be challenged or negotiated or defied and must always be proving its status, reinforcing its dominance to stay in popular thought. Marx’s idea of ideology was that the individual didn’t determine their place in society but rather society determined an individual’s fate, that their place was static, set, as determined by class structures and means of production.

While both of these concepts refer to the dominant ideology ruling society, Marx believed class structures were fixed and various classes could not break out of their constraints to partake in any dialogue with other class levels. However Gramsci took Marx’s notions a bit further and believed that there is in fact opportunity for dialogue and negotiation between classes and ideologies, that time, political shifts and technology could change dominant ideologies.

3. Explain the idea of ‘photographic truth’, and how it is related to the notion of scientific observation. Why is it considered false?

Photographic truth refers to the notion that the photographic image is always an objective representation of reality, because it is a technological device, a mechanical invention. It can be related to scientific observation in that the photograph is typically used (and was initially invented for), documentation of real life people, places, events and objects of interest. Because photography was such a technological advancement and appeared to be so much more accurate in the capturing of image than painting could be, a lot of stock was put into it as being a direct and unbiased representation of life, just as scientific observation is intended to be, giving it an authority as a technological device.

However, ANY representation is never JUST a mirror image of life. As long as a human being is behind a camera taking photographs, those photographs will be biased in some way, as the photographer brings his or her own ideologies, opinions and beliefs that he or she attaches to the subject of the photograph. The image is developed by a human choosing specific methods, and is framed in a specific way. Therefore, a photographer is using a representational device to make meaning just as much as any image producer.

4. Define the term spectator as it relates to visual production, especially film theory. Provide an example.

Spectatorship refers to the notion that the image presupposes the idealized viewer of that image. The viewer is not an individual but rather the target audience or demographic that the image wishes to cater to. In the case of film watching, the spectator is a passive subject who allows themselves to be taken in by the moving images, by the characters and action in the film. They are in a vulnerable, passive state as they watch a film in a dark movie theatre for example – they lose themselves in the moment and escape into the film, consciously and unconsciously accepting the ‘world’ of the film and live vicariously through the protagonist. The spectator loses the sense of self or ego and is instead empowered by the characters of the film that they relate to.

Films are produced (especially today) with a specific demographic in mind. Finding Nemo, for example immediately appeals to children of a specific age group because of the cuteness of its characters, the age of its main character and the bright colours and fun music. But knowing that parents have to take their children to see the film, production companies add specific elements to the film to cater to the parents as well, such as older parent characters, more sophisticated humour, and more action so that both children and adults can relate to and enjoy the film.

5. Define the term culture. Why it is considered a contested space?

Culture is a system of ideologies that define a society of people and give them an identity and a consciousness as a group. Culture is considered a contested space because individuals within this group may not always be in harmonious agreement with the dominant ideologies. Therefore the culture is in a constant state of flux or progression and development as old ideologies are contested and overthrown and new ideologies come into popularity. The advancement of new technologies, political shifts, time, education, influence of other cultures and gender role shifts all play a part in the contested space of a given culture.

6. Why is the notion of the subject important for better understanding of visual culture?

The notion of the subject is important for better understanding of visual culture because the subject is in itself a definition of that culture. The subject is a part of the cultural identity of society. The subject can be considered the intended or ideal viewer and is what a society may cater to, like a construct (not an individual) of what a society sees as the appropriate model to receive visual ideologies.

The subject is the concept of what a visual culture can create for. The relationship of subject, image-maker and the mechanisms used for image-making for example, altogether create meanings. Therefore the subject is crucial to the meaning-making of images.

Mass Media & the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Wow...just, woooooow....(mmmm....mapilicious....) I was looking for a pic of The Simpson's Town Hall to use to represent the public sphere and came across this little gem: a map of Springfield - go to the link and you can pinpoint all your favourite spots in the town. Town Hall is almost in the very middle of the map, just in the upper right quadrant.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/camerons/29511018/

How has the advent of mass media and mass culture changed our understanding of images? What did Walter Benjamin argue about the "Age of Mechanical Reproduction" and its impact on art?

Walter Benjamin was of the Frankfurt School of Critical Thought (early 20^th C) and argued that the effects of the Age of Mechanical Reproduction created a kind of secondary reproduced art dependent on the uniqueness and subsequently the authenticity and aura of the original. The invention and popular use of photography had a powerful impact on how images could be accessed, reproduced and understood in visual culture.

The aura, the essence and material presence of an original work of art, was something that a reproduction simply could not copy. The aura refers to the almost ‘religious’ experience of ‘taking in’ an authentic work of art as it was intended, in the proper environment (like a gallery) under the best conditions (in quiet reflection). Benjamin felt that mechanical reproduction destroyed the aura in art, as originals could be copied and these copies could be mass distributed. Therefore the essence of art was lost on the masses. Mind you, the ‘masses’ could not always access the original work of art anyway, so at the very least they could have a taste of the image, even if it was sub par, sans aura.

The image loses its authenticity in the process of mechanical reproduction but because of a copy’s accessibility and reproducibility, especially with photography, more people can share in at least part of the experience of the image. More people can afford to have a copy as opposed to an original, giving an image a wider audience and more exposure. This can actually add value or decrease the value of the original.

Also, Benjamin suggested, an image that is reproduced that loses its aura through this process, can instead play a different role in meaning-making. If a reproduced image reaches a wider audience, this allows for greater discourse about its meaning and therefore the image takes on a new life with new meaning, whether it be through political commentary, appropriation, propaganda, etc.

Mass Media and mass culture has affected our understanding of images in terms of how they can be used in social discourse through globalization, consumerism and reproducibility. We are inundated with imagery and multiple levels of meaning through the media, print, television, Internet and advertising. The process of engagement between image maker, image and viewer has been sped up – we absorb so much visually through the course of our everyday lives that we are hardly conscious now of just how much of it we suck in, how desensitized we can often get, and how regularly coerced we are.

Through mass media imagery we come to understand society and our place within it, as opposed to more formal relationships with fine art as in the past. With the Industrial Revolution, modernity and the rise of the middle class, mass media and mechanical reproduction allowed imagery to reach wider audiences more quickly and within more specific social contexts (such as advertising and then television…and advertising ON television…). McLuhan’s “medium is the message” fits nicely here.

Habermas’ concept of the public sphere (Monorail!! Couldn’t resist….), being a community forum for democratic process has gone from a literal concept to a virtual one through mass media – i.e. the Internet allows for differing opinions from all levels of society. However, dominant societal ideologies are still enforced with tremendous power through corporate propaganda. With large companies controlling the means or distribution of media communication, the public actually has less input into its content than they may be aware of. (Just the way Mayor Quimby likes it! -- vote Quimby)

Skunk savours self

One of mine...

Definitions:

The aura refers to the physical sense one gets from an original work of art as opposed to a reproduction. A reproduction of the Mona Lisa, for example, may be beautifully presented, accurately coloured (as much as possible) and may be more accessible to the average viewer, however there is nothing comparable to the original. Standing before the authentic Mona Lisa, in the Louvre, taking in the environment as well as the painting itself can be a spiritual, heavy experience, which simply cannot be attained by a copy.

Referring to semiotics, a sign is a code of representation that enables both the producer of an image and the viewer of an image to read specific meanings and to interpret meanings of their own. A sign can be a symbol, such as a very specific colour of blue used to depict the robes of Mother Mary in Medieval Christian painting, that adds value to an image, giving clues to greater social, political and cultural ideologies thus providing the viewer with a deeper meaning and context.

Aesthetics refers to the philosophical ideal and specifically individual sense of beauty in imagery. Unlike taste, which is more of a societal construct of cultural ideological preference, such as class, education, etc, aesthetics is tied to an individual’s personal preference.

Encoding and decoding refer to the ways that signs or visual codes are used in imagery to relay meaning. An artist or image producer may intentionally or unintentionally add signs to an image, which is encoding. The viewer of said image may then be able to decode the sign depending on what their social/political/cultural background may be. The viewer may be able to read the signs, giving them further insight into the meaning of the image. Renaissance art was typically full of signs and symbols of religious hierarchy for example (encoded) that the viewers of that period would be able to interpret, or decode.

The GAZE refers to the power associated with looking. The Gaze is often connected to males looking at (objectifying through fantasy and desire) women, voyeurism, or to surveillance. The Gaze can be applied to different ‘powers’ of society, class or gender. It is the relationship of these powers in objectifying or controlling their subjects that constitutes the Gaze. The Gaze can influence how a subject behaves knowing that they are being watched.

Panopticon refers to the institutional model representing the notion of the institutional gaze. Michel Foucault described the penitentiary panopticon model as a societal power (institution) that is ‘all-seeing’, and that regulates the behaviours of inmates (society) through surveillance or simply with the concept of surveillance. Inmates would self-regulate their behaviour based on the fact that they MIGHT be surveilled.

Voyeurism refers to the practice of looking at someone who is unaware they are being watched. It is a passive role, however the act of looking gives the voyeur access to their subject they wouldn’t normally be privy to, thereby instilling the voyeur with a sense of power or empowerment. Jimmy Stewart’s character of Jefferies in Hitchcock’s Rear Window, is a good example of the voyeur.

Bricolage refers to the notion of ‘making do’ or of taking what one finds in their culture (i.e. fashion items) and making it their own in defiance of the what the item was originally intended for. A teenage girl for example, might take her father’s necktie and wear it over a tank top as a fashion statement. Counter bricolage refers to the mainstreaming effect when manufacturers see the appeal of a bricolaged item and in turn begin to mass market it back to the demographic from whence it originated (i.e. Avril Lavigne started wearing neckties to be ‘cool’ and suddenly neckties specifically targeted at young girls could be bought at Walmart).

Visual culture is a shared system of meanings or ideologies through imagery. It refers to visual languages through which individuals and society make meaning and interpret their culture. Images represent ideas and things, but it is the negotiation (relationship) between an image's intended meanings and what the viewer brings of their own to that meaning that alters and transforms the meaning -- bringing with it social codes and signs that help the viewer to understand their culture in a larger scope.

Authenticity refers to the ‘realness’ or ‘actualness’ of an object or original image. An authentic image my be reproduced, but it’s ‘realness’ or essence or aura as an original can never be fully captured. An authentic image, a work of original art can hold great monetary value in comparison to its copies. An original Van Gogh, for example can be worth millions of dollars, however extremely accurate copies have been made that put a work’s authenticity into question.

Appropriation refers to the use of an image that is already ‘understood’ one way by society that is put into a different context. An artist or image maker may take a well known image and re-work it, visually manipulate it, add text, etc – to give new meaning or to comment on the image’s original meaning. Andy Warhol famously appropriated images, such as the photograph of the electric chair, repeated over and over in fun and ‘lively’ colours. Images are often appropriated to challenge a dominant ideology.

Have you had your dose of The Daily Shirt today? http://thedailyshirt.blogspot.com/

Focus Foucault

From:

http://monarch.gsu.edu/jcrampton/foucault/foucault_philly.html

"One of the arguments of D&P is that the prison emerged from a set of competing ideas on how punishment would take place, and that it was not a "natural" consequence of a desire for more humanitarian methods. In fact, the prison is better thought of as a whole series of processes of power relations which discipline and mark the body. These power relations serve to alter people--they "correct" them; the prison therefore is not just a place of detention but is a place where people are made into subjects."

Question from our course:

According to Michel Foucault, how does the gaze function as part of forms of social control? How is it institutionalized and how does it operate in ways that are both productive and repressive?

Michel Foucault’s use of the panopticon model, the architectural design for a super prison, demonstrates his ideas of how the GAZE functions as part of a form of social control. Foucault felt that the ‘ever-seeing’ eye of society is what keeps individuals’ behaviour within the realm of the acceptable and law-abiding.

The penitentiary panopticon model of Foucault’s theory is constructed whereby a main surveillance tower provides prison guards with a total view of inmates, but the inmates cannot tell just when they are being watched. Thus, according to Foucault, the sense of being watched or knowledge that the inmates can be seen at any time, forces them to self-regulate their behaviour. Their behaviour is directly tied to the institutional gaze.

Foucault believed that whoever has the power regulates the rest. If knowledge is power a society’s institutions maintain the authority and therefore can regulate society. Prisons, hospitals, schools, churches, are all institutions of reform or education and therefore possess power of authority from which the rest of society depends on for cultural and societal guidance.

The gaze, or in Foucault’s theory, the institutional gaze, comes from the power of these institutions.

Without this social order, individuals can lose their sense of social standards, morals and their very sense of identity as a societal group. In this sense the institutional gaze can keep a society functioning and productive. For example, surveillance cameras in stores remind us that stealing will not be tolerated and that our actions are being monitored and therefore we should ‘fly straight’ and obey our societal laws. Whether the camera is actually operational or not matters less than simply the knowledge that we could be watched. The knowledge of this gaze keeps citizens in check and law and safety abound and our society’s system of consumption functions as it should, benefiting society as a whole. Those who do not choose to abide by the law and are not inhibited by the camera’s eye, are seen by the rest of us as non-conformists, and the stigma of criminality is attached to them.

At the same time an individual’s sense of self may be in conflict with the push for conformity without criminal deviance coming into the picture. The individual may be repressed by the imposing social order – the self may be sacrificed for the greater good of society. For example, Foucault’s notion of biopower, that society uses the powers of cultural standards, norms and ideologies to regulate the health or appearance of its citizens (such as promotion of reproduction, hygiene, standards of beauty), may in fact be unattainable standards for the individual. Thus the individual is depleted by a sense of never measuring up, not meeting society expectations and may feel less connected as a member of society, thus giving the individual more reason NOT to conform.

Pyschoanalysis, Visual Representation and the Mechanisms of Power

How can psychoanalysis help us in better understanding of visual representation? What is the relationship between the gaze and mechanisms of power?

The unconscious is a difficult little beast to unleash – how do we perceive it in ourselves and in each other? The unconscious contributes SO much to what we see and especially to HOW we see, or how we look at images. But what does IT look like?! We think, we function, we think crazy thoughts, we don’t always function perfectly - we obsess, we worry, we indulge - we talk about it, write about it, read about it, act it out… But visual representation gives us the forum to express the emotion, the flux, the confusion of this in a way that other forms of communication cannot -- as fully, as cryptically, as boldly, or as freely.

Psychoanalysis is a handy tool to use when make meaning of visual representation – using the concepts of psychoanalysis we can delve deeper into the personal meaning we attach to images, as well as discover things that the image maker was or was not aware of encoding. Consider the Surrealists – without psychoanalytic theory surrealism wouldn’t exist to begin with, but the imagery would be lost on us on a more meaningful level. Imagery that is not immediately literal, or not so easily constructed as a narrative becomes meaningful and accessible and valid to a broader range of viewers when psychoanalytic theories offer an accompanying level of understanding.

But given all of this, psychoanalysis is another CONSTRUCT that subjugates the viewer, guiding them in understanding specific definitions for symbols and signs that will put the image and the viewer into specific contexts. The viewer as subject is detached of their individuality, leaving an ‘idealized’ constructed viewer to work with. With this constructed subject, psychoanalytic theory can then be applied and the effects studied for the greater social and cultural good.




So, thank you, Freud for your 3 stages of development in which we can get screwed up: Oral, Anal and good ol’ Phallic – all three of these stages make me ‘feel funny’, I guess because I’m just some freak woman. And he had this to say about the artist, as, “…a man who turns away from reality because he cannot come to terms with the renunciation of instinctual satisfaction and who allows his erotic and ambitious wishes full play in the life of fantasy. He finds his way back to reality by making use of special gifts to mold his fantasies into truths of a new kind which are valued by men as precious reflections of reality. He can only achieve [hero status] because of that dissatisfaction, which results from the replacement of the pleasure principle, is itself part of that reality.”

Hmmm, art isn’t just an outlet, buddy.

And then there are Lacan’s theories of the Mirror, the Other and the Real. He theorized a person in infancy develops their sense of Self in the Mirror stage only in relation to the Other. First they conceive of Self as everything and everyone, like their mother – there is no differentiation, until a child begins to understand only themselves as ‘Self’ and their mother, for example, as some one else entirely. There is a disconnect, and the child realizes they are now perceived, just as they can perceive others – this is the Mirror stage. Herein lies the beginnings of the GAZE – the child begins to understand themselves in a context of how they might be perceived by another, separate from their own perception. The child can then be constructed by the understanding that the Other acknowledges them in a specific way. From here develops the sense of the Real, that Lacan feels is never fully grasped, as the Real is attached to outside perception, which can never be ultimately known by the Self.

The Gaze then is a critical force in the construction of the self and development of identity. The Gaze can be directed from a specific person, and initially the infant receives it as such, however the Gaze as a societal force is how the subject is defined through adulthood. It is ever-present and a source of continual dominant social influences.

The relationship between the Gaze and the mechanisms of power is also dependent on how the subject makes meaning. Psychoanalysis in combination with social influence and ideologies construct the subject and the subject in turn responds by identifying with what they see.

Theorist Jean-Louis Baudry used the notion of cinematic apparatus as a way to construct the subject. He believed the subject as spectator is ‘released’ of self through the identification with the characters, narrative and film constructs of cinema. Here we can consider the spectator in terms of the Male Gaze – mainstream cinema is heavily laden with desire and fantasy directed towards the male and just as high art before it, continues in the tradition of feeding the voyeur role.

Theorist Michel Foucault believed in an Institutional Gaze – that helped to define and control the subject through the rigid enforcement of dominant ideologies through institutional authority, such as prisons, hospitals, schools, etc. Here the Gaze relates to surveillance, which the subject takes into account when conducting themselves in society. The notion of being watched encourages the subject to self-regulate, keeping a general social order and upholding the societal standards or dominant ideologies.

It's true, I know I want it....and I hate myself.

Althusser and Gramsci

French Marxist theorist Louis Althusser agreed to an extent with Marx in that dominant ruling classes determined social ideologies. However, Althusser believed that these social forces, or ideologies were more of a representation of a process between the individual and their place in society. Marx believed in a false consciousness that determines the order of society, while Althusser felt that ideology has a more meaningful connection to reality. Ideologies help us to understand society and culture and our place within it. In essence, ideology IS society and through the process of INTERPELLATION, we are ‘hailed’ or constructed as willing subjects, or big absorbent sponges. ‘We are what we eat’ you could say…Society tells us what we want and subsequently what we are.

Hmmm….makes us sound like a bunch of sheep!

Antonio Gramsci took this concept a bit further, suggesting that we aren’t just blindly led into believing whatever society says, or unquestioningly buy into the dominant ideologies. Rather, dominant ideologies are always at risk of changing, they are in flux with other social forces. The individual in this sense has a bit more ability to agree or disagree with dominant ideologies. This HEGEMONY as Gramsci named it, is a ruling system, wherein ruling ideologies are naturalized as common sense, but are not necessarily the be all and end all of social order. There is opportunity to challenge or negotiate the norms, as society progresses, as political, economic and social systems change, which is counter-hegemony.

Aesthetics, Taste and Marxist Theory of Class

When I think of aesthetics I think of something like an innate, sensory, personal preference. We use aesthetics to validate the things or choices that matter to us as individuals. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a good example. What we personally or individually think is beautiful may not be a societal standard – and what society thinks may not be a determining factor at all. We’re all different and aesthetics relates to our individuality. What I think is aesthetically beautiful is what I’ve always thought to be aesthetically beautiful, and probably always will, though I do believe there can be an evolution to this – because we evolve as individuals.

Taste on the other hand – well, what I used to think was tasteful I don’t so much any more. And what used to be in bad taste has become a kind of good taste. What is tasteful or in good taste fluctuates with societal standards, trends and fashion. Taste relates to society and culture – it is a common ‘sense’ of what is good (or popular) and what isn’t (the hot becoming ‘not’). It is acquired through societal conditioning. We ‘learn’ what to like from the rich and famous, from media, from corporations – we want to emulate particular people so we dress like them and buy the things they buy and mimic their lifestyles as much as we can – to place ourselves as close to their standards of living as possible. I don’t mean we’re all freakish clone wannabes, but honestly, most of us do this – whether it be to Britney Spears or Marilyn Manson or Donald Trump or whoever, hell, even all three at once! We’re persuaded to buy into these images and lifestyles – whether we actually look good in hot pink trailer trash too-tight sweats with a big ‘ho-princess’ scrawled across the butt is another issue entirely….and NO, people, NO we don’t look good. But if we wear this while driving our Lexus…well, we look just jim dandy....well, again, not. I dunno….is there good taste anymore? Or is there just ‘a taste’? At any rate, taste is a way for us to relate to others in society. We are drawn to others who have the same taste as we do.

The relationship between aesthetics and taste can be explored via the changing notions over time of high and low culture. There used to be a major divide between the two, as our Western society before the Industrial Revolution used to be more drastically rich and poor with no middle class. The monarchy and church ruled the rest – where the power lay was easily defined. And what is tasteful is determined by the powerful and those in positions of authority. Therefore the rich determined what was to be considered beautiful and in good taste, and this was represented as a standard to the rest of what it meant to be rich and powerful. Taste is also status.

In a sense aesthetics was more closely tied to taste back in the day. Monetarily valuable, well-crafted, extraordinary and unique things were tasteful, and seemed to have a generally accepted aesthetic beauty attached to them as well – for the value associated with their ‘specialness’. I’m generalizing of course – for even the rich can have bad taste (aghast – say it ain’t so!), but for the most part what the rich had to show off represented what it meant to be special, educated and ‘better’. Being high class used to mean old money, a lifetime of sophistocation and refinement. Today, having money certainly doesn't automatically imply being 'high class' or having good taste. Yuck, just look at the Beckhams!

Today taste has little to do with something being special. Today taste is more about mass production – what can be attained that will help us assimilate, or to be identified with a particular trend or facet of society. Connoisseurship is about specializing in a particular taste for something - being something of an expert about what you like. And it is still a term connected with higher culture, good taste stuff. You can be a connoisseur of fine wines and cheeses...but I suppose in this day and age you can be a connoisseur of dung beetles. Someone's gotta be! I personally know at least a few connoisseurs of kitsch. You can end up blowing a LOT of money.

Long ago low culture was for the suffering masses – crafts, though sometimes just as beautiful and well-crafted as high culture objects (and today often of equal monetary value), were made of practical, everyday materials. They represented everyday people and things and activities and helped folks to amuse themselves after a long day in the fields, to be social, scrape up a living, keep the kids busy, etc.

When we look at Marx’s theory on class structure we can see how and by whom taste is created. Marx believed that a ‘false consciousness’ or a constructed belief determined by the dominant ruling class kept the ‘lower’ classes in check. The dominant ruling class were the ones who controlled the means of production in society (economic determinism). The masses buy into this false belief, which in turn keeps feeding the system, keeps holding them down. The individual could not determine their fate or their place in society, but rather was defined by their class. The ‘greater good’ of society (industry) was what the masses worked for – for the big chugging machine of Capitalism.

So when we consider aesthetics and taste in this context it is possible to understand the doom and gloom in Marx’s outlook towards Capitalism. If an individual (especially some one low on the totem pole of power) is in a fixed state in society, their sense of taste is wholly determined by those in power and their sense of aesthetics probably won’t have a chance to develop, or evolve. Our sense of taste today at least allows some degree of or opportunity for expression. We have choices – we don’t have to share in the same taste as our neighbours or co-workers, there are many levels of taste and many things we can say about ourselves with it, though status is certainly a biggie. We buy into a lot of it of course – we’re persuaded by advertising and media, etc, but we can take as much or as little of it as we want. Given Marx’s views about the individual it is hard to imagine how taste would allow for expression if you were of the lower classes. More and more today people can and often do live or look like they live, beyond their means.

“The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.” (Marx)

As a worker in Marx’s depressing world of Capitalism, mass production and the disconnect between what part of the whole you are specifically producing in the system and the end result would squash one’s sense of aesthetics – as this relates to what matters to us as individuals. If individuality is not encouraged in this system then uniqueness, or ‘specialness’ diminishes.

And whoa....there are some crazy images on this site:

http://www.howardbloom.net/reinventing_capitalism/

Doesn't even matter that it's fake, still g'awd awful.

People are People

Every culture has its own cosmology - just watching a lecture here on TVO about the Dark Side of the Universe in relation to Einstein's theories (see, not having cable is good for something! - I'm tyring to convince myself....). Every culture asks questions about its relationship to the universe - why they are what they are and why they have what they have. Each culture comes to their own unique conclusions based on a myriad of factors: their histories, their geography, their system of government or religion, but essentially the questions each asks are the same. It is their visual representation that is different.

Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are!
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky.
Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are!

West Side Story...of ugly lofts

Ew ew ew ew ew!

http://www.westsidelofts.ca/index.html

"Be an original, buy an original", heh, oh and "Someone has the balls to do something different for a change".

AAAARRRRGHHHH!!!!! I grew up in Parkdale and was a teenager at the height of the crack cocaine problem of the neighbourhood in the late 80's and early 90's. I've seen the community through its worst and have always been interested in stories of it at its "best" (as Toronto's first richie suburb, pre-Rosedale) and am proudest to be resident to all its 'in-between'. I used to hang out at the Drake (1150 Queen W), back in the day of William New's Elvis Mondays, when Flaming Lips and Babes in Toyland were just cutting their teeth and needed a dank little basement bar to sweat up and when Phleg Camp took music to a whole other dimension of the mind and the heart. The Drake was a sad and scary little hole for drifters, hobos, addicts and crack whores...and some harmless old geezers to enjoy some country karaoke upstairs....and a few of us scrappy kids with no airs, who liked to make things, hear things, say things, liked that place very much (until New moved his project to the Edgewater at the other end of Parkdale, so we followed). The Drake was another of the old dusty railway hotels still seen today along Queen West - and the surrounding neighbourhood was a mish mash of dilapidated but still gorgeous old Victorian mansions and all night do-nut drug drop offs. It was a place where wearing your doc martens came in pretty handy (especially if you were a girl) if you could afford them. It was home.

And now....oy. Okay, I was EXTREMELY wary of the Drake's extreme make-over a few years ago. It's a cool concept, has done wonders to helm the 'neighbourhood revitalization' yadda yadda yadda - all the 'cool cats' have come to visit, hey that's great. Starbucks has infected - I hear rumours of a Gap sneaking in. And now this freakin' West Side Loft business. What the EFF?! I hate this I hate this I hate this I hate this. Where's the soul? Where's the truth? What happened to real people? Where the heck is the neighbourhood? Yes, yes, I know the hideous presentation centre for this thing will be turned over to Woolfitt's when it's no longer needed, to be used as an art gallery. That's swell. BUT HAS ANYONE NOTICED HOW HIDEOUS IT IS??? (and I'm not such a big fan of the chewy piece of fruited nougat stuck on top of OCAD, either).

It doesn't belong. In a BAD WAY. Alsop, with horrifying accuracy has managed to visually represent the worst of the worst that is happening in Parkdale today. And you know, I guess I needed that nasty amorphic monstrosity to visually assault me as I stroll down Beaconsfield (through the snobby eye-balling of the Drake set) enough times for me to finally need to say something. The Drake isn't enough because it already existed in a past life and I want to forgive it for this recent plastic surgery (I mean, I was there in '92 when lightning struck the place for cripes' sakes!). The pathetic tv ads for West Side Lofts aren't enough, all about being cool enough, young enough and for some reason, white enough (?!) to live in our vibrant, non-stop party neighbourhood...did I mention how freakin' COOL it is?!

I know, I know - it happens all the time and our city is aging and growing. Sigh....nimby. Spoken like a true Parkdalian! If only it was as easy as spraying the neighbour's cat with a hose....

This is a link from West Side Lofts site - guess they figure they're 'ubering' their 'uber-coolness' by linking up to some criticism and comment from the regular folk, coz it's cool to be talked about:

http://www.torontoist.com/archives/2006/01/condos_killed_a.php

The Future is now! In this hole here...

A....yam?!

What is Visual Culture?

My first inkling in defining visual culture is that 'the visual' is one of the very first and most important senses (for most of us two-to-four-eyed humanoids), visual absorption is, I believe, the first way we learn and the fastest sense we respond to. When we're born we're bloody and slimey and our orifaces are all clogged up with mucus (too visual? ha ha), but then the doctors and nurses clean us up, slap our bottoms and what are our immediate sensations? Besides a squished skull headache....touch, sight and sound. As newborns our eyesight develops - we see soft black and white blurs and light that gradually become shapes, then shapely colours, then hopefully our parents' smiling faces, then boob/food, objects, other faces, a neglected cat or dog perhaps...but my point is that pretty soon after birth we begin to see and not too long after that we begin to LOOK. We associate those kooky shapes and colours with people and animals and things and our other senses, like sound and touch help us remember them. But looking is the first 'language' most of us learn. We recognize Mom or Dad, or whoever we're dependent on and we learn how to read their facial features, and we learn how to make our own to signal our needs, and to respond to the messages we're sent through touch, through smiles, through intonations in sounds. Just as John Berger says in Ways of Seeing, "Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak."

The engagement in looking, or the relationships developed in the process of looking teaches us. Visual images represent things. We associate with them, we relate, and therefore we belong, we begin to understand ourselves in relation to others, and in specific contexts. We're given meaning, we begin to absorb it and respond to it and then we make it our own....and spit up and poop our diapers quite a bit, but nonetheless, the process begins pretty quickly! But at any rate, we first begin to learn how to communicate and then specifically to negotiate visually.

Okay, so then what the hey is visual culture? And WHY is there a piece of cheese grating itself here?! I'll...uh....I'll get to that...

Right, so then visual culture must refer to a shared, or common practice of visuality. Culture is like a collection of common practices a given society refers to in order to identify, understand and operate or govern itself. A group of people subscribe to a system of beliefs, practices, rituals, that keeps a collective order, or offers a basis or foundation of defining "self" in a sense that each member of the group can generally accept. This can refer to all facets of society: law, religion, spirituality, politics, education, economics, etc. And if visuality is a 'language' through which a society absorbs and shares and makes meaning from information, then the visual aspect of culture is pretty darn critical - it's the first way you learn about yourself and relate to others, and it is the first window into culture, whether it be your own or that of some other group. Without learning another verbal/textural language than our own, we can still look at other cultures and certainly not fully understand them, but still have the capacity to gather and learn from a tremendous amount of visual information, and of course, make our own meanings from it. Some visual representation can be universally read, like the peace symbol, or the non-smoking sign - at least to most developed countries. But I remember hearing or reading somewhere that Gerber baby food did not go over well in Africa or something because in that culture, images are always used on food items to indicate ingredients, as opposed to uses for. Mmmm, strained baby, uh, babies! In this sense we can see how visual culture is the window into as well as the mirror reflecting and also a forum for negotiating or navigating meaning and culture.

So why then, wouldn't I just post a pretty picture of a window or something to support this? Why the cheese?? Well...dang, I just think this is the FUNNIEST comment on suicide I've seen since.... That's right. You read that right. At least, that's how I read it. A friend sent me this pic back in April because he thought it would amuse me (he thinks I'm just weird). But I've been schlepping through a big muddy Depression swamp for a few years now, am just in the process of drying my boots off you might say....and this dumb picture made me think of my life from a different vantage point, the 'other side' if you will. I have no idea why comics (especially comic-food!!) seem to be the visuals I respond to with the most excitement, but they are -- which you'll see a lot of in future posts. Anyways, aside from the fact that the cheese has a face and ridiculous string arms, he's rubbing his back on a cheese grater. Cute/stupid, right? Well....for the momentary relief he might feel in scratching that itch of his....he's also skinning himself alive. And man, can I relate to that. Some one else might read it as a piece of cheese who's albeit reluctantly making himself all shreddy and ready for spaghetti (didn't mean to rhyme that, sorry), but I can only see it as a bizarre yet fitting suicide attempt: futility, like your very meaning becomes your destruction via the thing that you identify with the most. And it makes me laugh, because it makes me feel GOOD that I'm not there anymore. It's that light-hearted stupid little saving grace image I wish I'd had a couple of years ago. It helps me laugh at myself, which I've come to learn is rather essential for good health. Thank Gawd for small cheesy wonders.

Heh, well, this IS a journal, right?

Anyways, it was the first image I thought of after the first class of VISC1B06 in reference to how we make meaning. Who knows what the cheese was intended for, obviously something silly, I mean it's cheese with a face! Nonetheless I have a very personal meaning of my own attached to it and it's hard to see it any other way now. And I'm happy to have a chance to share it.