1.
Dear Kalle Lasn,
After reading your book Culture Jam, my eyes have been opened to a whole new world of activism and things of the sort. As a child that had grown up for many years without the influence of television, my youth wasn't shaped by brands like others' were. I had my own relative sense of cool, and until I had taken a media literacy & environment class in college, I didn't understand how corporations and brand names could control a person's life so acutely. Here at college, I have realized that everyone subconsciously follows trends and that it actually is very difficult to be different and fight the system. For instance, during a walk down a busy block or college campus, you would be hard pressed to find a t-shirt or jacket that didn't have the brand clearly printed somewhere on it, and there are almost no shoes you would see without the classic swoosh or UGG logo's screaming out at you. As an environmental studies major at the University of Vermont, I share many views with my classmates about the problems about consumer culture nowadays. I had heard of the things activists do to protest politics and corporations they believe are harming the environment, but I wasn't as keen as they were to join rallies and those sort of things. Culture Jam explained a whole new way of protesting to me, and I particularly enjoyed the chapter titled The New Activism. Unadvertising and educating yourself on how to battle the effects of advertisements are important to today's culture jammer, and I now have the tools to do just that. Every time an advertisement comes in front of me now, I find myself analyzing it and realizing how powerful they can be to the uneducated mind. Being a college student has definitely put a dent in my checking account balance, but even before school I had never been the type of individual that went and shopped/consumed just for the hell of it. At a young age I realized the devastating effects modern consumerism had the the environment, which was what got me interested in environmental studies in the first place.Your book has helped elevate my knowledge of how to unlearn these types of lifestyles and to make it known to others that they can change too. I have even shared your views with people close to me, and without even reading your book, they are making changes in their lives because the reality of it all scared them so much. Thank you for sharing your insights in this wonderful book.
2.
The end of the corporation was one of hope for the future, which was impressive seeing that the previous 2 hours of the movie was just bad news stacked sky high. One thing that was most surprising to me was the fact that corporations have basically the same legal rights as a person as made clear by the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. When a corporation does something illegal, how do you punish something that has the rights of a human being but is just a name on paper? Something that aroused agitation was the suppression of an investigation of Bovine Growth Hormones by FOX news company. With the power of expensive legal advisers, FOX basically got away with many illegal things such as forcing employees to avoid the truth but at the same time not lie to the public. This shows how much power corporations have when it comes to politics and legality. A significant new item of learning is that the CEOs of most major corporations have no idea of the atrocities they're committing in the countries in which they manufacture their goods.The interview between Michael Moore and Paul Knight was an eye opener. One question I have after viewing the film is; what can the public do to help speed up the deconstruction of corporate America? What can people besides movie makers like Michael Moore do to get the attention of these corporations and get them to change their ways?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Week 8 Responses
1. One of the first sections I read sparked a realization for me about new vs. used cars, a debate I have argued with friends and family about for as long as I've been able to drive. My 98' civic gives me more of a sense of security and trustworthiness than any other car I have driven, presumably because it's the car I've spent the most time in and tending to. The fact that cars change in style and design every year is only to gain advantages in sales over other car brands, and only a few minor things change in performance adjustments every few years.
The section on dieting, calories, and eating disorders interested me as well. It's true that food companies have promoted convenience and good taste instead of nutrition and healthiness, making our conscious food-purchasing no longer enjoyable or free. Why go to the grocery store and prepare the food you buy yourself when you can take the easy car ride down the street to McDonalds and pick up a hot pre-made meal.
Thirdly, ecological economics is a worldview that I myself have studied, from classes in college to books explaining the movement, and I really believe that this is what we need to change the direction the United States and the world are heading in. The expansionists, or classical economists, put their trust in technology to save us in the future from depletion of resources and such disasters, but they don't realize that we are already consuming at a rate faster than the earth can handle.
The section about the evolving definition of the word "cool" is interesting because the people who may believe they're cool are in fact the ones that are controlled by corporations and taught to follow trends. The people who are legitimately "cool" nowadays are the ones who rebel against these corporate giants and their tag lines. Americans are now lazy and can do things with the push of a button, unlike the old definition of cool, where people actually had to have physical talent in a certain area to excel in it. Cool is no longer a part of knowledge or academia, it's how well we can coincide with consumer culture.
Finally, an observation of the section on memes led me to realize that I support every one of the culture jammers' arsenal of metamemes. Although I haven't joined rallies and marched to city halls to debate these views, it feels good to be a part of the movement to fix the global economy.
My question to the media conglomerates is whether or not they realize they're destroying the world as we have known it and do they have a backup plan if their work comes crashing down on them?
2. The movie has opened my eyes to how much wrong can be done in the world without anyone noticing it. The fact that companies would rather pollute and pay the fines when they get caught as opposed to not polluting and greening their companies astonishes me. There is also the fact that there are countless numbers of companies that do this, and the large name brands we have heard of only scratch the surface of the list. The section which reveals that Phil Knight, the Nike CEO, has never even visited the factories he has built in developing countries, let alone visit those countries, should be a crime. The worst part is that the developing countries actually view these sweatshops as opportunities to enrich their lives, because even the meager pay they receive is more than they would have gotten without the factory work.
The section on dieting, calories, and eating disorders interested me as well. It's true that food companies have promoted convenience and good taste instead of nutrition and healthiness, making our conscious food-purchasing no longer enjoyable or free. Why go to the grocery store and prepare the food you buy yourself when you can take the easy car ride down the street to McDonalds and pick up a hot pre-made meal.
Thirdly, ecological economics is a worldview that I myself have studied, from classes in college to books explaining the movement, and I really believe that this is what we need to change the direction the United States and the world are heading in. The expansionists, or classical economists, put their trust in technology to save us in the future from depletion of resources and such disasters, but they don't realize that we are already consuming at a rate faster than the earth can handle.
The section about the evolving definition of the word "cool" is interesting because the people who may believe they're cool are in fact the ones that are controlled by corporations and taught to follow trends. The people who are legitimately "cool" nowadays are the ones who rebel against these corporate giants and their tag lines. Americans are now lazy and can do things with the push of a button, unlike the old definition of cool, where people actually had to have physical talent in a certain area to excel in it. Cool is no longer a part of knowledge or academia, it's how well we can coincide with consumer culture.
Finally, an observation of the section on memes led me to realize that I support every one of the culture jammers' arsenal of metamemes. Although I haven't joined rallies and marched to city halls to debate these views, it feels good to be a part of the movement to fix the global economy.
My question to the media conglomerates is whether or not they realize they're destroying the world as we have known it and do they have a backup plan if their work comes crashing down on them?
2. The movie has opened my eyes to how much wrong can be done in the world without anyone noticing it. The fact that companies would rather pollute and pay the fines when they get caught as opposed to not polluting and greening their companies astonishes me. There is also the fact that there are countless numbers of companies that do this, and the large name brands we have heard of only scratch the surface of the list. The section which reveals that Phil Knight, the Nike CEO, has never even visited the factories he has built in developing countries, let alone visit those countries, should be a crime. The worst part is that the developing countries actually view these sweatshops as opportunities to enrich their lives, because even the meager pay they receive is more than they would have gotten without the factory work.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Week 7 Response
The drudgery of life in America is easy to see wherever you go. Advertisements for things you don't have are always smiling down at you from billboards with their perfect and beautiful spokespeople. A majority of the time someone poses for an advertisement, they don't even know what brand they will be representing. Being short on money makes you realize these things more often than not, because you can only dream about what you would do or buy if you actually had the money. On the other hand, if you were wealthy, would consuming more brand name goods make you happier? Apparently not, according to Culture Jam. As society becomes more modern with new advancements in technology and lifestyles, more and more people become affected by depression. Asian countries that adopt the American culture have been studied and reportedly rise in depression rates, and I'm sure they're not the only developing countries that are afflicted by this "plague".
A few lines about the typical American really intrigued me and made such good sense it was frightening. They included the facts that we watch nature programs instead of going out to experience it for ourselves, we laugh at sitcoms' bland jokes but not at our families' similar comical moments, and we watch more shows that include sex than we actually perform ourselves. When I moved into my room at the beginning of this school year, I was all set to have my own TV to watch cable on, but for some reason, my room was the only one without the proper cable hookup. My TV has sat lifeless on my dresser for this whole year, and now that I have witnessed the dull reality of what could have been, I couldn't be more pleased that it never worked. There have been many instances during my free time where I can just relax to music or escape with my own thoughts. It is sad that our cultural freedom has been lost to the slavery of technology and work.
Our idea of comedy is not our own anymore. It belongs to the studio audience that laughs every time a punchline is blurted out on your regularly scheduled late night cable rotation. Is there ever a time when you would laugh and the studio audience doesn't? Not likely. I find this very annoying and my mind drifts to this angry spot whenever I hear that studio audience begin to crack up at the lamest of jokes. This is just another example of how we are being programmed as a culture.
The unofficial history of America section of Culture Jam had me asking myself many questions. the first was what they are going to be writing in the history books of the future. The stories of the wars that allowed us to be our own patriotic nation as we broke free from British rule are undeniable, but what is going to fill the books during times of peace, or as close as we will ever be to it. America no longer battles its' "enemies" overseas, but rather itself and the consumer culture we are trapped in. We are prisoners of war with our own country. I can't wait to read the chapter about the 300 companies Microsoft has either bought out or sold. That should hold the attention of future teenagers very raptly...
A few lines about the typical American really intrigued me and made such good sense it was frightening. They included the facts that we watch nature programs instead of going out to experience it for ourselves, we laugh at sitcoms' bland jokes but not at our families' similar comical moments, and we watch more shows that include sex than we actually perform ourselves. When I moved into my room at the beginning of this school year, I was all set to have my own TV to watch cable on, but for some reason, my room was the only one without the proper cable hookup. My TV has sat lifeless on my dresser for this whole year, and now that I have witnessed the dull reality of what could have been, I couldn't be more pleased that it never worked. There have been many instances during my free time where I can just relax to music or escape with my own thoughts. It is sad that our cultural freedom has been lost to the slavery of technology and work.
Our idea of comedy is not our own anymore. It belongs to the studio audience that laughs every time a punchline is blurted out on your regularly scheduled late night cable rotation. Is there ever a time when you would laugh and the studio audience doesn't? Not likely. I find this very annoying and my mind drifts to this angry spot whenever I hear that studio audience begin to crack up at the lamest of jokes. This is just another example of how we are being programmed as a culture.
The unofficial history of America section of Culture Jam had me asking myself many questions. the first was what they are going to be writing in the history books of the future. The stories of the wars that allowed us to be our own patriotic nation as we broke free from British rule are undeniable, but what is going to fill the books during times of peace, or as close as we will ever be to it. America no longer battles its' "enemies" overseas, but rather itself and the consumer culture we are trapped in. We are prisoners of war with our own country. I can't wait to read the chapter about the 300 companies Microsoft has either bought out or sold. That should hold the attention of future teenagers very raptly...
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Week 4 Responses
1.
The section relating to LA Law personally intrigued me because of a certain case and how it was presented to the jury. A movie of the defendant getting beaten by police was allowed to be shown as evidence, but it had been edited and slowed down to make it seem less violent than it actually was. Something can be edited beyond original recognition these days and it made me think of the Dove evolution PSA. If everything on TV is edited to control how we think, we lose our personality and creativity.
Another topic in the next chapter that got me thinking was the magazine demographic studies. As it turns out, many magazines have devoted readers, and through these readers and their interests, the magazines gain valuable information on who else they can target. For instance, GQ readers are trendsetting men; they are hip, affluent, and above all influential. Maxim readers are men who aren't interested in fashion, they're interested in clothes. "He's a man who has arrived, but is still going places". If magazines can make these bold statements about their readers, can't advertising companies target certain audiences in the same way?
2.
The thesis of the article is that even though our brains are developing at a rate faster than ever before, today's technology is making thinking for yourself a thing of the past.
When Cascio writes about the frightening thought of what life in 2030 will be like, it was as if he had read my mind. If we think of this time incrementally however, it doesn't seem too surprising what new things we will come up with. Take modern discoveries for example. As they are unveiled each year, they are regarded as breakthrough technology, but we become so used to new things that they almost become obsolete in the next year or two. I also agree that as more digital technology we rely on becomes faster and smarter, we do as well. Our brains are adapting to new technologies and this is also true the other way around.
Something I don't agree with in Cascio's article is the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs, and how he says that if you aren't using them, you will fall behind other's intelligence. I believe these drugs are only for people who can't focus their minds in the first place, and in no way is it "cheating".
3.
-Marketing companies have thousands of resources and ways to collect demographic information to better target consumers.
-Corporations are now regarding their products as cultures, specifically Song Airlines' take on providing a brand new experience in flight.
-Product loyalty can be researched and paired up with reasons why people join cults and other organizations.
-Ads can't just be 30 second clips anymore between shows, they have to now be incorporated into the actual shows, to the point where we wouldn't even think twice about their advertising.
-Researchers can now define words such as luxury, and make people think that this is what they need in their life.
The section relating to LA Law personally intrigued me because of a certain case and how it was presented to the jury. A movie of the defendant getting beaten by police was allowed to be shown as evidence, but it had been edited and slowed down to make it seem less violent than it actually was. Something can be edited beyond original recognition these days and it made me think of the Dove evolution PSA. If everything on TV is edited to control how we think, we lose our personality and creativity.
Another topic in the next chapter that got me thinking was the magazine demographic studies. As it turns out, many magazines have devoted readers, and through these readers and their interests, the magazines gain valuable information on who else they can target. For instance, GQ readers are trendsetting men; they are hip, affluent, and above all influential. Maxim readers are men who aren't interested in fashion, they're interested in clothes. "He's a man who has arrived, but is still going places". If magazines can make these bold statements about their readers, can't advertising companies target certain audiences in the same way?
2.
The thesis of the article is that even though our brains are developing at a rate faster than ever before, today's technology is making thinking for yourself a thing of the past.
When Cascio writes about the frightening thought of what life in 2030 will be like, it was as if he had read my mind. If we think of this time incrementally however, it doesn't seem too surprising what new things we will come up with. Take modern discoveries for example. As they are unveiled each year, they are regarded as breakthrough technology, but we become so used to new things that they almost become obsolete in the next year or two. I also agree that as more digital technology we rely on becomes faster and smarter, we do as well. Our brains are adapting to new technologies and this is also true the other way around.
Something I don't agree with in Cascio's article is the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs, and how he says that if you aren't using them, you will fall behind other's intelligence. I believe these drugs are only for people who can't focus their minds in the first place, and in no way is it "cheating".
3.
-Marketing companies have thousands of resources and ways to collect demographic information to better target consumers.
-Corporations are now regarding their products as cultures, specifically Song Airlines' take on providing a brand new experience in flight.
-Product loyalty can be researched and paired up with reasons why people join cults and other organizations.
-Ads can't just be 30 second clips anymore between shows, they have to now be incorporated into the actual shows, to the point where we wouldn't even think twice about their advertising.
-Researchers can now define words such as luxury, and make people think that this is what they need in their life.
Week 5 Responses
1.
During the first section of the reading, subliminal advertising is the topic of most interest to me. I still wonder to myself if this type of advertising is taking a hold of me. Brands are right to admit that today's consumer culture is no longer naive, and they must get our attention in some other way. Something else of interest to me was the way that we as consumers do realize how much we do advertisers' work for them. Yes, we all detest ads for the most part and don't agree with the way they appeal to us, but these same people are wearing logos day in and day out, giving the brands free advertising. Thirdly, I enjoyed the pranks of Joe Garden and his advice on how to disrupt the system with minuscule attacks. In my day, I have seen plenty of fake eBay auctions, most of them hilarious, and this made me think of them. Also, the idea of sending businesses back their business reply envelopes with a ton of garbage in them is very tempting.
My question for section 1 is that alcohol and liquor ads can hide ridiculous pictures and subliminal messages in their ads, how far does this type of marketing go?
My question for section 2 is how did no one realize they were buying foreign groceries twice every week for a year?
2.
Twitter, once thought to be just a new way to tell your friends what you're eating for breakfast, is now on the verge of being one of the most important social networking devices, ready to surpass Google in it's dominance of Internet searching.
I support Johnson's reasoning on why Twitter can now be so helpful not only in the social world but in the business world as well. To be able to ask a list of a 1000 people what they think about a decision in real time can be revolutionary in the way we carry out business. I also agree that Twitter is battling for support throughout the toughest economic times we have ever seen. People are out of jobs but continue to invent ways to keep in touch with each other.
I don't agree with the fact that Johnson sees it as proactive that people can only use 140 characters in their Twitters, causing information transmitted to be more precise. I am a firm believer in explanation, and although sometimes things can be explained in a few short words, it is mostly not the case. I also disagree with the way Twitter is now promoting advertising, the very topic we have been studying for the past few weeks.
I personally don't use Twitter because I don't require instant updates on everyone I know. I rely on the occasional browsing of facebook or texting to find out how people I care about are doing. I otherwise have no bias towards twitter.
3.
-Everything that has to do with advertising has gotten increasingly sexual, especially while children and teens are still developing a knowledge of advertisements.
-Advertising no longer has to be in your face, because it can be subtly everywhere you look, from friends clothes to movie backgrounds.
-The idea of corporations paying people to advertise brands to their friends and family is disgusting.
-The males of TV and advertising become increasingly violent and the women become more sexual.
-Cool Hunting? Enough said.
During the first section of the reading, subliminal advertising is the topic of most interest to me. I still wonder to myself if this type of advertising is taking a hold of me. Brands are right to admit that today's consumer culture is no longer naive, and they must get our attention in some other way. Something else of interest to me was the way that we as consumers do realize how much we do advertisers' work for them. Yes, we all detest ads for the most part and don't agree with the way they appeal to us, but these same people are wearing logos day in and day out, giving the brands free advertising. Thirdly, I enjoyed the pranks of Joe Garden and his advice on how to disrupt the system with minuscule attacks. In my day, I have seen plenty of fake eBay auctions, most of them hilarious, and this made me think of them. Also, the idea of sending businesses back their business reply envelopes with a ton of garbage in them is very tempting.
My question for section 1 is that alcohol and liquor ads can hide ridiculous pictures and subliminal messages in their ads, how far does this type of marketing go?
My question for section 2 is how did no one realize they were buying foreign groceries twice every week for a year?
2.
Twitter, once thought to be just a new way to tell your friends what you're eating for breakfast, is now on the verge of being one of the most important social networking devices, ready to surpass Google in it's dominance of Internet searching.
I support Johnson's reasoning on why Twitter can now be so helpful not only in the social world but in the business world as well. To be able to ask a list of a 1000 people what they think about a decision in real time can be revolutionary in the way we carry out business. I also agree that Twitter is battling for support throughout the toughest economic times we have ever seen. People are out of jobs but continue to invent ways to keep in touch with each other.
I don't agree with the fact that Johnson sees it as proactive that people can only use 140 characters in their Twitters, causing information transmitted to be more precise. I am a firm believer in explanation, and although sometimes things can be explained in a few short words, it is mostly not the case. I also disagree with the way Twitter is now promoting advertising, the very topic we have been studying for the past few weeks.
I personally don't use Twitter because I don't require instant updates on everyone I know. I rely on the occasional browsing of facebook or texting to find out how people I care about are doing. I otherwise have no bias towards twitter.
3.
-Everything that has to do with advertising has gotten increasingly sexual, especially while children and teens are still developing a knowledge of advertisements.
-Advertising no longer has to be in your face, because it can be subtly everywhere you look, from friends clothes to movie backgrounds.
-The idea of corporations paying people to advertise brands to their friends and family is disgusting.
-The males of TV and advertising become increasingly violent and the women become more sexual.
-Cool Hunting? Enough said.
Week 6 Responses
1.
-Facebook, although the most popular social networking site in the world, is very hesitant to let users know it's real purpose; to make money by advertising more specifically than ever before.
-I agree with the fact that facebook indeed separates us from our actual lives instead of "enhancing" our relationships. Quantity is definitely more important to social networking users than quality.
I also agree that facebook is deliberately trying to replace nature and the real world with a virtual world, which facebook's original board member Peter Thiel admits himself. He quotes Thomas Hobbes who said that life was nasty, brutish, and short, saying that the new virtual world of facebook will bring about the conquering of nature. He has also given money to researchers that experiment on artificial ways to make people live longer.
I don't agree with facebook's ridiculous claims of a fake version of privacy. The small print in it's privacy statement is enough to make the strongest stomach quiver with nausea. It essentially tells you that anything you enter into your computer at any point in your life will be saved and even if you decide to change it, an original version will always be kept.
I also don't agree with the way advertisers are exploiting facebook users on a whole new level by targeting them with super-specific ads that they almost can't resist. Facebook quietly sits back and lets users enter all of their interests into the networking site, and then this information is sold to corporations to put ads on specific people's pages.
2.
Williams' article went over almost everything we have focused on in class when it comes to big media controlling the way we see things. From TV to newspapers to video games, ads are subconsciously remodeling society and what we desire from it. Parents can only be "good" parents for so long by not letting their children watch TV for hours on end or submit to their incessant begging for toys/merchandise. At a certain point, schools will be influencing children with ads just as much as if the kids had sat home all day and watched TV. Besides being a total recluse, there is no way around it. The only way to prepare for what's to come is to properly educate those who won't recall a time we didn't have cell phones or internet access 24/7. It takes much practice to realize that when you see an ad something on TV, it is most likely much different in real life, and mush less satisfying as well.
3.
-Younger women are used in ads to target a younger crowd.
-Men are depicted as strong and resilient, while women are seen as vulnerable and quiet.
-Only 5% of the female population of the world could ever look like the ones in advertisements, and it would be genetically rather than because of dieting.
-Girls self esteem is fine before they hit adolescence, but it then drops because they don't look like women on TV.
-Violence towards women has recently been seen as erotic, if not wanted. "No means yes?"
-Facebook, although the most popular social networking site in the world, is very hesitant to let users know it's real purpose; to make money by advertising more specifically than ever before.
-I agree with the fact that facebook indeed separates us from our actual lives instead of "enhancing" our relationships. Quantity is definitely more important to social networking users than quality.
I also agree that facebook is deliberately trying to replace nature and the real world with a virtual world, which facebook's original board member Peter Thiel admits himself. He quotes Thomas Hobbes who said that life was nasty, brutish, and short, saying that the new virtual world of facebook will bring about the conquering of nature. He has also given money to researchers that experiment on artificial ways to make people live longer.
I don't agree with facebook's ridiculous claims of a fake version of privacy. The small print in it's privacy statement is enough to make the strongest stomach quiver with nausea. It essentially tells you that anything you enter into your computer at any point in your life will be saved and even if you decide to change it, an original version will always be kept.
I also don't agree with the way advertisers are exploiting facebook users on a whole new level by targeting them with super-specific ads that they almost can't resist. Facebook quietly sits back and lets users enter all of their interests into the networking site, and then this information is sold to corporations to put ads on specific people's pages.
2.
Williams' article went over almost everything we have focused on in class when it comes to big media controlling the way we see things. From TV to newspapers to video games, ads are subconsciously remodeling society and what we desire from it. Parents can only be "good" parents for so long by not letting their children watch TV for hours on end or submit to their incessant begging for toys/merchandise. At a certain point, schools will be influencing children with ads just as much as if the kids had sat home all day and watched TV. Besides being a total recluse, there is no way around it. The only way to prepare for what's to come is to properly educate those who won't recall a time we didn't have cell phones or internet access 24/7. It takes much practice to realize that when you see an ad something on TV, it is most likely much different in real life, and mush less satisfying as well.
3.
-Younger women are used in ads to target a younger crowd.
-Men are depicted as strong and resilient, while women are seen as vulnerable and quiet.
-Only 5% of the female population of the world could ever look like the ones in advertisements, and it would be genetically rather than because of dieting.
-Girls self esteem is fine before they hit adolescence, but it then drops because they don't look like women on TV.
-Violence towards women has recently been seen as erotic, if not wanted. "No means yes?"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
