I agree with Ewen that we construct our identities partly through our consumer products that inhabit our lives. The answer is an easy one to respond to because the idea of commodity self affects our identities in part, not the whole.
The basic justification for advertisements affecting our identities is pretty similar to the way a parent influences a child. If a parent rears a child in a positive or negative light, then it will directly correlate to the way the child acts in his or her own life. In the same way, advertisements that are viewed and acted upon through a person's life will without a doubt have some affect on that person's life and identity.
However, there can be a huge difference between the way advertising affects a person's identity and the way a parent affects a child's identity. Since the parent is much more involved in the child's life, the actions of the parent will have a much bigger effect on the child's identity. Advertisements - however - have more of a minor, subliminal role in life, so they will have less of a role in terms of changing an identity. As a result, the "commodity self" will affect certain individuals on different levels.
Another fact to recognize is the fact that in today's world most people recognize the "artificial fakeness" of the advertising world and the world of Hollywood that often has a direct influence on it. The people who recognize this "artificial fakeness" are more likely to not let advertisements affect their identity. However, the people who act more in line with the world of Hollywood might be affected more by the "commodity self."
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Blog #4 - Piet Mondrian
In the eyes of history, Piet Mondrian’s background begins in a way similar to many people in history. Reared in a family of artists, his father dreamed of having him become a drawing teacher, but he wanted to be a painter. As usual, this caused some skirmishes with both father and son, but the latter’s stubbornness would win the round. Growing up in Holland, he would eventually make his way to the Academy of Fine Arts in Amsterdam, making ends meet doing what real artists did, but it would be clear that he did not fit into the crowd of typical artists.
Also typical of many people of his time was his reaction to his strict Calvinist background. Although, typically, most people react to the downtrodden view on the sinfulness of humanity, it seemed that his reaction had to do with not fitting into the typical Christian view of a transcendent universe – a religion in which God is viewed as being a separate entity, creating the universe out of complete nothingness. His ideas seemed to fit more closely to that of the Eastern Religions – a religion that view the universe as essentially God, meaning that all creation is essentially divine as a result. He called this idea as the “divine absolute,” which lies in all humans and is projected by humans into everything. As a result, he thought that it was his job to “paint the divine in itself … as he found it within him, without reference to any single object” (Seuphor 51). Eventually, his eastern ideas would solidify when he joined the Theosophical Society, a religion heavily influenced by eastern ideas – especially Buddhism. Eventually, the distinction between religion and art became less evident, and he would soon come to believe that religion and art were of the same essence.
My own personal observation as to why Mondrian would be lead into the art of abstraction comes from the fact that he was atypical in both the realms of art and religion. As a result, it becomes easy to see how the two become merged into one, especially since his religious ideas focused on an immanent rather than transcendent reality. My interest in Mondrian is purely based in the merger of these two fields on account of the fact that I am a religion major at Otterbein (“the few, the proud, the religion majors…”). Since the Eastern Religions focus on an impersonal Ultimate Reality – which is similar to saying that God is impersonal – it is no wonder that his work seems to become more abstract. It makes me wonder if his religious beliefs would directly lead him to the work of abstraction, but it could just be my bias getting the best of me.
"Apple Tree in Blossom" (1912)
"Tree" (1993)
"Evening Landscape" (c. 1904)
"Farmyard at Nistelrode" (c. 1904)
"Landscape near Amsterdam" (c. 1902)
Works Cited:
Seuphor, Michel, Piet Mondrian: Life and Work (New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1957).
Harrison, Charles, Francis Frascina, Gill Perry, Primitivism, Cubism, Abstraction: The Early Twentieth Century (London, England: Yale University Press, 1993).
Also typical of many people of his time was his reaction to his strict Calvinist background. Although, typically, most people react to the downtrodden view on the sinfulness of humanity, it seemed that his reaction had to do with not fitting into the typical Christian view of a transcendent universe – a religion in which God is viewed as being a separate entity, creating the universe out of complete nothingness. His ideas seemed to fit more closely to that of the Eastern Religions – a religion that view the universe as essentially God, meaning that all creation is essentially divine as a result. He called this idea as the “divine absolute,” which lies in all humans and is projected by humans into everything. As a result, he thought that it was his job to “paint the divine in itself … as he found it within him, without reference to any single object” (Seuphor 51). Eventually, his eastern ideas would solidify when he joined the Theosophical Society, a religion heavily influenced by eastern ideas – especially Buddhism. Eventually, the distinction between religion and art became less evident, and he would soon come to believe that religion and art were of the same essence.
My own personal observation as to why Mondrian would be lead into the art of abstraction comes from the fact that he was atypical in both the realms of art and religion. As a result, it becomes easy to see how the two become merged into one, especially since his religious ideas focused on an immanent rather than transcendent reality. My interest in Mondrian is purely based in the merger of these two fields on account of the fact that I am a religion major at Otterbein (“the few, the proud, the religion majors…”). Since the Eastern Religions focus on an impersonal Ultimate Reality – which is similar to saying that God is impersonal – it is no wonder that his work seems to become more abstract. It makes me wonder if his religious beliefs would directly lead him to the work of abstraction, but it could just be my bias getting the best of me.
"Apple Tree in Blossom" (1912)
"Tree" (1993)
"Evening Landscape" (c. 1904)
"Farmyard at Nistelrode" (c. 1904)
"Landscape near Amsterdam" (c. 1902)
Works Cited:
Seuphor, Michel, Piet Mondrian: Life and Work (New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1957).
Harrison, Charles, Francis Frascina, Gill Perry, Primitivism, Cubism, Abstraction: The Early Twentieth Century (London, England: Yale University Press, 1993).
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Blog #3 - Harrell Fletcher
Discuss the concept about Harrell's Garage Sale Series. What kinds of relationships were identified? What was his reasoning behind it? How was this project a reflection of community arts
The most important aspect of the Garage Sale display was the story that was behind the object. By knowing the story behind the object, one could learn about the family through the object. In a sense, the individual looking at the object could be creating a relationship with a person that he/she had never met. This paves the way to community art, especially if the person looking at the display is from the same area.
Community art is created from objects put on display from a particular area. When members of the community view these particular objects and learn the story behind the objects, a person learns something about his/her community. If the object is of particular interest, then that individual might go to the source and get to know the artist. If enough people do this, then the community as a whole will know each other better and will become more unified as a result. In other words, community art creates community. It is an identity that creates a culture for that particular location.
The most important aspect of the Garage Sale display was the story that was behind the object. By knowing the story behind the object, one could learn about the family through the object. In a sense, the individual looking at the object could be creating a relationship with a person that he/she had never met. This paves the way to community art, especially if the person looking at the display is from the same area.
Community art is created from objects put on display from a particular area. When members of the community view these particular objects and learn the story behind the objects, a person learns something about his/her community. If the object is of particular interest, then that individual might go to the source and get to know the artist. If enough people do this, then the community as a whole will know each other better and will become more unified as a result. In other words, community art creates community. It is an identity that creates a culture for that particular location.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
The Peep Diaries: Hal Niedzviecki
Connection with Low Expectation and the Search for Community in an age of Alienation.
I think that there is a direct connection between "Low Expectation" and the "Age of Alienation."
First, Hal stated that all humans all live in a state of loneliness, although that state of loneliness has different levels of loneliness depending on the individual. When it comes to Peep Culture, we use the "World of Electronics" to help ease our loneliness by finding out who has the same problems as we do.
This loneliness - or more properly designated as the "Age of Alienation" - directly influences "Low Expectation." In this concept of "Low Expectation," people flock toward the "World of Electronics" as a basis of finding common ground among all humans. As a result, when we find people with the same problems as we do, we feel better about ourselves, at least temporarily. However, all we seek to do is find that common ground, the fact that we have the same problems, but we do not try to help each individual get through those problems. Finding common ground without helping solve a person's problems is the basic definition of "Low Expectation."
As an example, on a Twitter account, I might comment on someone post that says the following: "I feel so lonely sometimes and wonder if I matter in life." In a world of "Low Expectation," I would reply to the comment saying, "I agree with you." If this were a Facebook account, then I would "like" the status. However, in terms of trying to talk to that person and help solve that person's problems, I couldn't care less. Instead, I am temporarily comforted in the idea that someone has the same problem as me.
In the end, as our society continues to become more involved in this aspect of "Low Expectation," we will continually become into an "Age of Alienation." To me, this means that - despite the fact that we might feel temporary solace of our own loneliness based off of common ground - we will just grow more lonely in real life. I am not sure if Hal would agree with me here, but it seems that just looking for common ground in terms of our own varying degrees of loneliness will not solve our loneliness. I think that it will just make it worse (I know...depressing, huh?).
I think that there is a direct connection between "Low Expectation" and the "Age of Alienation."
First, Hal stated that all humans all live in a state of loneliness, although that state of loneliness has different levels of loneliness depending on the individual. When it comes to Peep Culture, we use the "World of Electronics" to help ease our loneliness by finding out who has the same problems as we do.
This loneliness - or more properly designated as the "Age of Alienation" - directly influences "Low Expectation." In this concept of "Low Expectation," people flock toward the "World of Electronics" as a basis of finding common ground among all humans. As a result, when we find people with the same problems as we do, we feel better about ourselves, at least temporarily. However, all we seek to do is find that common ground, the fact that we have the same problems, but we do not try to help each individual get through those problems. Finding common ground without helping solve a person's problems is the basic definition of "Low Expectation."
As an example, on a Twitter account, I might comment on someone post that says the following: "I feel so lonely sometimes and wonder if I matter in life." In a world of "Low Expectation," I would reply to the comment saying, "I agree with you." If this were a Facebook account, then I would "like" the status. However, in terms of trying to talk to that person and help solve that person's problems, I couldn't care less. Instead, I am temporarily comforted in the idea that someone has the same problem as me.
In the end, as our society continues to become more involved in this aspect of "Low Expectation," we will continually become into an "Age of Alienation." To me, this means that - despite the fact that we might feel temporary solace of our own loneliness based off of common ground - we will just grow more lonely in real life. I am not sure if Hal would agree with me here, but it seems that just looking for common ground in terms of our own varying degrees of loneliness will not solve our loneliness. I think that it will just make it worse (I know...depressing, huh?).
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Blog Assignment #1 - Gender in Art and Ads
There are three reasons for the idolization of women in art and the exploitation of women in advertisements. It has to do with the subtle difference between art and design, the changing societal norms of the perfect female figure, and the market's exploitation of these two observations.
The first reason states that there is a fine line between formal art and art created from design. Formal art tends to be tied to an author, creating a line of respect for the work and the details of that work. Design, even though it is technically considered art, is more informal and is often used for selling a product or a service. In other words, an advertisement might be an art, but it isn't as memorable due to the fact that the art is not connected to a particular artist. As a result, if there is no respect for the artist that created that memorable logo for a particular product, anything within the design can be used and exploited for marketable purposes.
The second reason states that the epitome of the perfect, beautiful woman changes over time. However, this evolutionary change does not change a work of art that was created in a different social context. In other words, the beautiful woman in a painting created in the 1600's might not appear as beautiful in our society. As a result, one might idolize a painting created in the 1600's even though he or she might not find that woman beautiful. One might argue that this reason wouldn't apply in current day art. However, knowing that the majority of the art that we view comes from different social contexts and time periods, it seems reasonable that that idolization or veneration of the female could be applied to current day art simply because we are used to doing it with most other art from different contexts. In other words, because I am used to venerating women in old art, I will do the same in current art.
The third reason is market's exploitation of the perfect woman in order to sell a product. Since there is not much respect in design on account of there being no recognizable author of a logo (for example), it would seem perfectly reasonable to use that same design (since there is minimal or no respect for it) to sell a product. The best way to sell that product would be by using the epitome of the perfect woman for market exploitation. Even further, one can use respected art and replace the out-of-date woman with today's perfect woman in further hopes of selling a product.
In summation, idolization of women in art comes from being in a different social context where beauty had different standards. It also comes from respect of the author and the work - like a female portrait - that stems from that author. Exploitation of women comes from advertisement and its lack of recognizable authorship, resulting in a minimal result for the work. This paves the way for market exploitation, specifically by selling a product by means of today's standard for the perfect woman.
The first reason states that there is a fine line between formal art and art created from design. Formal art tends to be tied to an author, creating a line of respect for the work and the details of that work. Design, even though it is technically considered art, is more informal and is often used for selling a product or a service. In other words, an advertisement might be an art, but it isn't as memorable due to the fact that the art is not connected to a particular artist. As a result, if there is no respect for the artist that created that memorable logo for a particular product, anything within the design can be used and exploited for marketable purposes.
The second reason states that the epitome of the perfect, beautiful woman changes over time. However, this evolutionary change does not change a work of art that was created in a different social context. In other words, the beautiful woman in a painting created in the 1600's might not appear as beautiful in our society. As a result, one might idolize a painting created in the 1600's even though he or she might not find that woman beautiful. One might argue that this reason wouldn't apply in current day art. However, knowing that the majority of the art that we view comes from different social contexts and time periods, it seems reasonable that that idolization or veneration of the female could be applied to current day art simply because we are used to doing it with most other art from different contexts. In other words, because I am used to venerating women in old art, I will do the same in current art.
The third reason is market's exploitation of the perfect woman in order to sell a product. Since there is not much respect in design on account of there being no recognizable author of a logo (for example), it would seem perfectly reasonable to use that same design (since there is minimal or no respect for it) to sell a product. The best way to sell that product would be by using the epitome of the perfect woman for market exploitation. Even further, one can use respected art and replace the out-of-date woman with today's perfect woman in further hopes of selling a product.
In summation, idolization of women in art comes from being in a different social context where beauty had different standards. It also comes from respect of the author and the work - like a female portrait - that stems from that author. Exploitation of women comes from advertisement and its lack of recognizable authorship, resulting in a minimal result for the work. This paves the way for market exploitation, specifically by selling a product by means of today's standard for the perfect woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)