Since watching all the documentation surrounding the death of Kim Jong-Il I've been really interested in the idea of information control. I also watched a film about two young girls growing up in Korea and finding it hard to survive.
My teacher suggested I look into how Kim Jong Un is being presented within the media, and look at the differences between him and his father.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Sunday, 13 November 2011
Semiotics
Today we learnt about semiotics, a way of writing about something we understand visually.
Sign = Signifier + Signified
form concept
form concept
- Iconic Signs - look like the things they signify
- Indexical Signs - refers to other knowledges such as grey clouds = rain
- Symbolic Signs - have meaning due to convention. words + flags etc.
- Symbolic Signs - have meaning due to convention. words + flags etc.
After discussing a number of topics such as sign systems, the really interesting pioneer plaque and the hidden meanings behind leather trousers.. we moved onto Pink's video 'Stupid Girls'.
The entire video is filled with visual data we can process and understand. The lighting hitting certain bits of her body, the fashion, from gangsta clothes to the slutty girly outfits. At the start of the video the girl is playing with barbie toys yet by the end of 'stupid girls' she favours more masculine toys and goes outside to play football. There are conscience guides at the very start of the video. Fire/hell = bad and White/heaven = good. Which is an indexical sign. We know them from cartoons and other religious referencing video present in our western culture.
The video takes a lot of signs such as big boobs, platinum blonde hair and orange tans, along with surgery to show exactly what people associate those things with, 'stupid girls'. There is also a shot of Pink with 50cent and she is dancing against him, sharing the camera space equally. However, the light is on her, but only on her curves. 50cent pays no attention to her at all, showing she is only a body. His clothes are also emanating pimp, with a fur coat and lots of jewelery. There are clips aimed at looking aged due to the tv showing black and white only, the clothing being dated, exaggerated female gestures, these all give impressions of war times, when girls looked immaculate and acted so. There is some footage of her playing football outside with a lot of guys showing that she could be doing something other than being a stupid girl and there is an indication of her being president whilst stood on a podium infront of the American flag.
Basically everything in this video from start to finish is set up to show something meaningful. The camera angles, the lighting, the clothing, the environment, the lyrics at the time. the camera space shared with others, the direct links to other popular culture icons such as Paris Hiltons sex tape and Jessica Simpsons car washing all of it is visually symbolic of stupid girls and the idea you don't have to become one.
The video takes a lot of signs such as big boobs, platinum blonde hair and orange tans, along with surgery to show exactly what people associate those things with, 'stupid girls'. There is also a shot of Pink with 50cent and she is dancing against him, sharing the camera space equally. However, the light is on her, but only on her curves. 50cent pays no attention to her at all, showing she is only a body. His clothes are also emanating pimp, with a fur coat and lots of jewelery. There are clips aimed at looking aged due to the tv showing black and white only, the clothing being dated, exaggerated female gestures, these all give impressions of war times, when girls looked immaculate and acted so. There is some footage of her playing football outside with a lot of guys showing that she could be doing something other than being a stupid girl and there is an indication of her being president whilst stood on a podium infront of the American flag.
Basically everything in this video from start to finish is set up to show something meaningful. The camera angles, the lighting, the clothing, the environment, the lyrics at the time. the camera space shared with others, the direct links to other popular culture icons such as Paris Hiltons sex tape and Jessica Simpsons car washing all of it is visually symbolic of stupid girls and the idea you don't have to become one.
Friday, 4 November 2011
Fashion
Today we looked at what fashion is, the way it has developed over time and it's morality problems in greater depth. Fashion is somewhat a reflection of culture and the constant changes around us.
It can only be appreciated if others understand it. Something highly fashionable in one country may not be viewed the same in a place with a completely different culture. It also helps people to feel like they fit in. We discussed the idea of belonging to a crowd. Fashion allows us to pinpoint different categories of people. You could quite easily go around a school or college and put people into certain groups based upon what they are wearing. The judgement may not be entirely true about the person, but people definately fit into certain categories here from the popular, sporty people, the super girly girls and the goth group who all hang out in black hoodies.
Fashion is different based upon who is viewing it and again different to whoever is wearing it. Like art it is a number of signs, symbols and iconography that communicate a meaning about the person.
The reading task after this was Street Style & It's meaning in Postwar Japan - Hiroshi Narumi.
The text generally is about how the youth subcultures in both Britain and Japan are very similar in the visual language they use, although the influences as to why would be vastly different. After the war many subcultures formed within Japanese cities mainly Tokyo, with lolita, ganguro and gyaru girls to name a few. Japan very much so took to frowning upon the groups of young people wearing clothes which did not conform, they were moved along for simply wearing what they did because of the statement the clothing itself was making to people. Not only did the clothes not fit, but if worn differently to the way something was meant to be worn that was also a statement of rebellion in itself.
Not all subculture groups were simply dressing to make a statement, the bôsô-zoku were the biker gangs who actually caused trouble. The costumes worn by this group of people however, were also designed entirely to shock. Symbols from right-wing political parties and military groups were used to make them appear intimidating. This visual system of appearing shocking also showed up in Britain in the form of Punk culture.
British fashion moved on to create new meanings for people, however Japanese fashion seems to have more emphasis on the effects of other cultures.
It can only be appreciated if others understand it. Something highly fashionable in one country may not be viewed the same in a place with a completely different culture. It also helps people to feel like they fit in. We discussed the idea of belonging to a crowd. Fashion allows us to pinpoint different categories of people. You could quite easily go around a school or college and put people into certain groups based upon what they are wearing. The judgement may not be entirely true about the person, but people definately fit into certain categories here from the popular, sporty people, the super girly girls and the goth group who all hang out in black hoodies.
Fashion is different based upon who is viewing it and again different to whoever is wearing it. Like art it is a number of signs, symbols and iconography that communicate a meaning about the person.
The reading task after this was Street Style & It's meaning in Postwar Japan - Hiroshi Narumi.
The text generally is about how the youth subcultures in both Britain and Japan are very similar in the visual language they use, although the influences as to why would be vastly different. After the war many subcultures formed within Japanese cities mainly Tokyo, with lolita, ganguro and gyaru girls to name a few. Japan very much so took to frowning upon the groups of young people wearing clothes which did not conform, they were moved along for simply wearing what they did because of the statement the clothing itself was making to people. Not only did the clothes not fit, but if worn differently to the way something was meant to be worn that was also a statement of rebellion in itself.
Not all subculture groups were simply dressing to make a statement, the bôsô-zoku were the biker gangs who actually caused trouble. The costumes worn by this group of people however, were also designed entirely to shock. Symbols from right-wing political parties and military groups were used to make them appear intimidating. This visual system of appearing shocking also showed up in Britain in the form of Punk culture.
British fashion moved on to create new meanings for people, however Japanese fashion seems to have more emphasis on the effects of other cultures.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
London 2012 Olympic Logo
Is this design really that bad?
I think so.
I don't want to appear like I'm just jumping on the band wagon here but really.. It looks like it came from the 80's. It's jagged, brightly coloured, not visually appealing in the slightest and seems to have offended far away countries such as Iran. Many people even state their 9 year old could have done better.
Whoever thought it up was really on a mission to make it the most annoying, ugly logo ever and make enough people talk about it for it to get well known. This works quite a lot for advertising products, but I'm not sure what they meant to achieve here!
I feel the previous olympic logos leaned towards showing off their own style or something about their country. I would have preferred something more boring, classic looking. I like how the designers tried to say it was to include everyone, before aiming it at young people. I'm sure most of the older generations will not enjoy the insanely bright colour choices here. So does this even work? Growing up I haven't ever followed the olympics, not without soon flicking around to find something better. The only people I know who watch it are older. Personally, I feel a lot of this makes no sense. Who is this aimed at?
I don't feel like everything has to be plain and boring when appealing to a larger audience. Everything at once though? I'm not liking it. I just feel the logo says nothing about the country it's held in other than we make terrible logos. It is mostly just a date in horrible colours.
If I'm honest the branding in black and white actually looks quite nice. It's a memorable shape overall. But it's still ugly..
I think so.
I don't want to appear like I'm just jumping on the band wagon here but really.. It looks like it came from the 80's. It's jagged, brightly coloured, not visually appealing in the slightest and seems to have offended far away countries such as Iran. Many people even state their 9 year old could have done better.
Whoever thought it up was really on a mission to make it the most annoying, ugly logo ever and make enough people talk about it for it to get well known. This works quite a lot for advertising products, but I'm not sure what they meant to achieve here!
I feel the previous olympic logos leaned towards showing off their own style or something about their country. I would have preferred something more boring, classic looking. I like how the designers tried to say it was to include everyone, before aiming it at young people. I'm sure most of the older generations will not enjoy the insanely bright colour choices here. So does this even work? Growing up I haven't ever followed the olympics, not without soon flicking around to find something better. The only people I know who watch it are older. Personally, I feel a lot of this makes no sense. Who is this aimed at?
I don't feel like everything has to be plain and boring when appealing to a larger audience. Everything at once though? I'm not liking it. I just feel the logo says nothing about the country it's held in other than we make terrible logos. It is mostly just a date in horrible colours.
If I'm honest the branding in black and white actually looks quite nice. It's a memorable shape overall. But it's still ugly..
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Sally Mann
I actually really enjoyed looking into the work of Sally Mann. I feel like she is a very well rounded individual and it's nice to see someone speak so openly over death and the photographic documentation of it. She's quite inspiring as an artist.
The work she did using her own children, showing their everyday lives, whilst looking at different cultural perceptions of bigger topics such as death and sexuality is a little questionable overall. I personally do not feel her work really falls under anything morally wrong though, as the way she uses her children here does not seem to harm them whatsoever. The Body Farm work is quite amazing to look at for me. I suppose in some sense the questions about taking photos of dead people is again questionable. From what I understood the bodies were already given for scientific purposes, something these people had selected for themselves. In this case there would probably be pictures taken anyway and I feel she is subjecting society on the whole to look at something completely natural. The pictures are quite eerie with the way she takes them, but I really can appreciate what she is showing here.
People should be subjected to more taboo subjects that are completely natural, things we do not see that are everyday parts of life such as death.
It was nice to be able to find something so indepth online. :) She says some very interesting things and is very straight up about the art she creates. I really like that she is particular about taking general pictures of the things around her.
Controversies
Upon reading the post provided to us about specific instances of photography use I find it interesting to see what sort of perceptions different people have and how they as an overall group of people, directly influence the way the law changes over time. Photographs once shown in galleries can be taken down at a moments notice regarding the current law changes.
I read about the case where Brooke Shields had pictures taken at 10 years old in the bath. The topic that Gross chose seems a little risqué, but I would say more has come to light recently regarding the topic of the sexualisation of young girls. The difference between a naked image of a girl in a bath, being simply a girl in the bath is very different once they adopt makeup. I do not feel the photographer himself was doing anything pornographic here. I think it was an unfortunate case though, as Brooke herself didn't even sign away those rights to her pictures then. I don't feel parents should be able to do that, at least the contract should be limited to when she is old enough to realise she doesn't want them in a public domain.
Photographers and companies now have to be really careful with showing any child nudity. I understand in some respects, considering the children themselves can't understand that people will see this work of them however, I feel in a sense that limiting that sort of innocent picture taking will always be a slippery slope.
The story of Omayra Sánchez was more shocking to me than most. Similar to the pictures of the man stealing grain from a starving boy, Fournier's image shocked many people. No one really wants to see technology capturing the moments of a young girl's death, yet being unable to save her. The photographer could do nothing but watch and capture, as he spoke with her during her time left. I really find these sort of photographers astounding. To me it never shows a lack of help with them standing back and observing. They are making a much bigger statement through the documentation of incidents, to the entire world.
I feel the pictures of Omayra do not really serve any purpose other than to show humanity very plainly. The people around her trying to help and the people in government who did not. I feel that in this sort of case I would want to show the world what was going on, the girl does not seem phased by any of it. She speaks on camera quite openly. I think in this case the image did an amazing job to illustrate an amazing girl who stayed calm throughout her ordeal. It shows certain aspects of humanity in a very positive light.
Toscani's image of 'Kissing-nun' doesn't really shock me all that much. The only thing I see from this image is that he's portraying the fact that although things are forbidden in these lifestyles, the people are still human beings. This goes against anything traditional but they're still shown in a very nice light overall. Toscani's work seems to be all about the shock value, making people think. I suppose if I was more religious I might feel differently but as it stands he's simply making people look at traditional contraints within society today.
I read about the case where Brooke Shields had pictures taken at 10 years old in the bath. The topic that Gross chose seems a little risqué, but I would say more has come to light recently regarding the topic of the sexualisation of young girls. The difference between a naked image of a girl in a bath, being simply a girl in the bath is very different once they adopt makeup. I do not feel the photographer himself was doing anything pornographic here. I think it was an unfortunate case though, as Brooke herself didn't even sign away those rights to her pictures then. I don't feel parents should be able to do that, at least the contract should be limited to when she is old enough to realise she doesn't want them in a public domain.
Photographers and companies now have to be really careful with showing any child nudity. I understand in some respects, considering the children themselves can't understand that people will see this work of them however, I feel in a sense that limiting that sort of innocent picture taking will always be a slippery slope.
The story of Omayra Sánchez was more shocking to me than most. Similar to the pictures of the man stealing grain from a starving boy, Fournier's image shocked many people. No one really wants to see technology capturing the moments of a young girl's death, yet being unable to save her. The photographer could do nothing but watch and capture, as he spoke with her during her time left. I really find these sort of photographers astounding. To me it never shows a lack of help with them standing back and observing. They are making a much bigger statement through the documentation of incidents, to the entire world.
I feel the pictures of Omayra do not really serve any purpose other than to show humanity very plainly. The people around her trying to help and the people in government who did not. I feel that in this sort of case I would want to show the world what was going on, the girl does not seem phased by any of it. She speaks on camera quite openly. I think in this case the image did an amazing job to illustrate an amazing girl who stayed calm throughout her ordeal. It shows certain aspects of humanity in a very positive light.
Toscani's image of 'Kissing-nun' doesn't really shock me all that much. The only thing I see from this image is that he's portraying the fact that although things are forbidden in these lifestyles, the people are still human beings. This goes against anything traditional but they're still shown in a very nice light overall. Toscani's work seems to be all about the shock value, making people think. I suppose if I was more religious I might feel differently but as it stands he's simply making people look at traditional contraints within society today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)