I have been reading the book "Ways of Seeing", by John Berger, after watching his series of the same name.
The method Berger uses to analyse art and advertising is very interesting and relates to how I want to write my essay: Focusing on specific characteristics of an image, he understands the meaning of those symbols and its cultural context, raising several broad questions about society. I will post here some notes and excerpts that I want to keep in mind when analysing my cultural text (I'm still not sure of exactly how to talk about the issues I'm worried about focusing on a specific object, but I'll do some more research further on). -"In no other form of society in History has there been such a concentration of images, such a density of visual messages." -"One may remember or forget these images, but briefly one takes them in, and for a moment they stimulate the imagination by the way of either memory or expectation". -"We are now so accustomed to being addressed by these images that we scarcely notice their total impact." - the same applies to screens! -Publicity is not merely an assembly of competing messages: It is a language itself, always making the same general proposal - that we transform ourselves, our lives, by buying more. " Showing us people who have apparently been transformed and are, as a result, enviable. -STATE OF BEING ENVIED = Glamour - the created reality, the illusion. IMPROVED ALTERNATIVE -The spectator/buyer is meant to envy himself as he will become if he buys the product. MARGINALLY DISSATISFIED -"The publicity images steal people's love as they are, and offers it back for the price of the product". -"Publicity is the culture of the consumer society - It propagates through images that society beliefs in". -"Publicity turns consumption into a substitute for democracy - the choice of what we consume takes the place of significant political choices". -Publicity helps masking all that is undemocratic within society - INTERPRETS THE WORLD -The two worlds coexist. -Without publicity capitalism couldn't survive. -"Capitalism survives by forcing the majority, whom it exploits, to define their own interests as narrowly as possible." FALSE STANDARD OF WHAT IS AND WHAT'S NOT DESIRABLE
0 Comments
As someone who's interested in character design for animation, it is important to analyse how certain characteristics and types of personality are expressed visually. I decided to focus on antagonists. Are there any features which encompass most designs of evil? Signs, faces and expressions linked to villains? Which are the facial attributes that represent a malicious nature? I decided to focus on Disney animation because of how it constructs a perception of the world in a binary conceptualisation, clearly distinguishing between Good and Evil. Also, Disney's style has a very influential role in how western people imagine, our culture is embedded in its designs and vision. Looking at the picture posted above, its easy to identify resemblances in the five villains: -A prominent pointed chin, associated with hot-tempered, stubborn, fiery, sensitive and weak-minded people because of its angular look, which can convey intense emotion. -Very noticeable teeth, sign of danger, beasts. -Aquiline noses, associated with intelligent shrewd people. -Exagerated high cheekbones, representing an unsettlingly skeletal deathly appearance. -Dark eyebrows, usually curved down in the center, expressing anger. Our contemporary culture is ingrained in religious symbolism. All villains resemble the devil, and these previous analysis' characteristics are also associated with the satan's representation, from medieval to modern age. Is it possible to step out of the symbolic associations society teaches us? Are we constrained to repeat the same visual analogies, according to inherent connotations? As a creative practicioner, is innovation and originality achievable? While walking on the streets of any ‘civilised' city, its not possible to ignore the huge amount of screens that also populate it.
Screens of all shapes and sizes, in the most original places, giant, medium and small noticeboards, bus stops, shop windows, inside and outside vehicles, walls, cellphones, tablets, clocks, computers, televisions… the list goes on. We are constantly being bombarded by screens, stormed by its lights, inebriated by its power, consuming its messages. Why? Why do we perceive it as a natural inevitable activity? What is its history? What is a screen? There are many different types of screens, developed throughout History, the cathode ray tube, Flip-Flap, Light-emitting diode, Vacuum fluorescent display, LED, LCD, OLED, etc. Even though their construction and physiognomy are distinct, all screens share the same purpose: Attract attention to the message it contains. How do screens attract attention? Screens captivate human eyes in an exceptional way, and this is mostly due to its light. Unlike most objects, screens emit light, instead of reflecting it. Just like lamps, fire, or the sun, screens illuminate instead of being illuminated. This is of extreme relevance: Emitted light allures our eyes because of its power and significance - warmth, familiarity, aliveness. Just like mosquitoes, humans are intuitively attracted to light. During the night, artificial emitted light devices are a substitute to day-light. This is convenient, but also has its disadvantages - while looking at a screen the eyes get tired easily of constantly being buzzed with light, the brain acts as if it isn’t sleepy. Human nature is perturbed with these modern habits, and the long-term consequences haven’t been discovered yet. What do screens communicate? In the final part of his book and programme “Ways of Seeing” (1972), John Berger discusses advertising. His manner of critical thinking was significant and cutting-edge for his contemporaries, since he spoke about this habitual subject in a profoundly unconventional way. “In our urban world, in the streets where we walk, in the buses we take, in the magazines we read, on walls, on screens, we’re surrounded by images of an alternative way of life. We may remember or forget these images, but briefly we take them in, and for a moment they stimulate our imagination”. His introduction is tangible, precise, and doesn’t apply only to advertising. Nowadays, this description goes beyond publicity, and integrates into games, films, the internet! We are surrounded not only by still images, but moving images. It captivates our attention, we briefly take them in and distort our perception of reality. Advertising and Propaganda is everywhere to be consumed, conscious or unconsciously. Can this be dangerous? Can we be manipulated by how it distorts our notion of reality? The world inside screens - this created reality - does it enrich and improve our physical world? This cultural text’s rationale was motivated by the themes discussed in the lecture “Mediated Culture”, such as mass produced culture, the hyperreal, how “images come to you, you do not come to them”, and how “the mass media, popular culture and media images (…) control and shape all other social interactions and dominate our sense of reality.” |
Archives
February 2017
Categories |