Ferrell Cool-Aid

In her book, Cultures in Orbit, Lisa Parks discusses the use of space exploration photography and how it has been utilized to reinforce a western view of, well, everything. Capitalism, western philosophy, supremacy of the white male, up and down are all notions that have been promulgated either on purpose or inadvertently by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) through stellar photographs disseminated through the popular media. Modern science has developed a tendency, with the aid of American media outlets, to discourage dissent by marginalizing those scientific opinions that differ from theirs bringing all existence to a human level. This belittling of dissenting opinion is accomplished, in many instances, through the use of comedy.

Will Ferrell as George Bush is a prime use of comedy as a political/scientific tool. (See embedded video) Global warming has been an issue of heated debate, with most of the debate presented on news channels like Fox News that are obviously right leaning. Lisa Parks when speaking about pictures coming from the Hubble space telescope suggests that, “embedded within Hubble’s capacity for distant vision is a discursive strategy of remote control.” She goes on to discuss popular media needing to position extraterrestrial images and science in a terrestrial manner to make it more digestible for the masses. This need by popular media to chop science into little bits that “regular” people can understand is what breeds bits like the one Will Ferrell starred in on Saturday Night Live.

Although there are many things throughout existence that humans have no control over there seems to still be a need by many news agencies to rationalize natural occurrences to a level that gives humans the power to control them. Lisa Park, again discussing images from Hubble, says, “they have also been used to represent extremely distant matter as if it were part of us.” This example citing Hubble photographs is further evidence that media, in addition to other opinion leaders, finds a need to cap all science at an altitude that does not exceed human inference and control.

A discussion, with specific regard to global warming, would not be complete without mentioning Al Gore’s, An Inconvenient Truth. It shouldn’t be expected that a movie supposed to be a proponent of the effects of man-made global warming would present both sides of an issue but the methods employed by Gore’s film take the audience as elementary students, as exemplified by the use of Simpsons-esque cartoons. All of these elements

Control has been exerted through the use of space media that is disseminated throughout the population of the Earth by mostly American, i.e. industrialized nations, that enforces the paradigm that only the learned enough to go out and receive knowledge to be relayed to other, more unintelligent human beings. The smartest people in the room coming from well funded government agencies are the gatekeepers to “up and down” that tell the rest of us, albeit subliminally, what our values are and how we should approach the rest of our reality.

Joel Engles

District 9: South Africa's Best Kept Secret

Alien invasion texts often reinforce or criticize immigration policies and anxieties that are a part of a society's cultural politics. Lisa Parks acknowledges in her article “Satellite Panoramas,” the idea that technology and ideology are often used to reinforce Eurocentric ideals, citing the film The Arrival as her example:

“The Arrival is a highly symptomatic text in that it recombines and concretizes discourses alluded to throughout this chapter. Moreover, it clarifies the way astronomical observation and technologies are embedded within a broader system of cultural politics.”

In The Arrival, the alien race in the film are depicted as “Hispanic-looking” and had retrofitted defunct power plants in Central and South America that pump out quantities of greenhouse gases which is being “attributed” to causing global warming. The main message The Arrival reinforces is that immigrants and South and Central America are responsible for global warming and that white Americans should fear the “alien” civilization that is coming into the United States. While The Arrival reinforces the anxieties and Eurocentric beliefs regarding immigration and global warming, District 9 criticizes the immigration policies and the cultural politics of South Africa rather than reinforce them.

District 9 alludes to the South African government's mishandling and mistreatment of the immigrants and refugees that enter the country. The film also appears to support immigration reform and rights for the immigrants and refugees. The immigrants and refugees in District 9 are represented as “prawns,” a race of insect-like creatures which are similar to the Parktown prawn, a king cricket species native to South Africa.

The prawns in the film serve as a mirror of the people that were abused under the system of Apartheid; unfortunately some of the practices that have carried over from its dissolution continue to this day. The MNU is given the task to move the prawns from District 9 into District 10 by either asking them to leave their homes or evicting them by brutal force. This can be interpreted by many as a reference to the treatment resident black South Africans and refugees were given by their government during apartheid. The scene in which Wikus (Sharlto Copley) visits the home of a prawn family, he explains to them that they need to vacate District 9 and move into District 10, though Wikus later on acknowledges that District 10 is a much worse than District 9. This has a historical significance since in 1966 during Apartheid era, an area known as District 6 was declared a “whites only” zone by the South African government, forcibly removing 60,000 black South Africans into Cape Flats.

The Arrival and District 9 are discourses that deal with the cultural politics of immigration and its policies. The Arrival reinforces white America's anxiety about immigrants and immigration policies, which encourages white America to fear the “arrival” of Mexicans and other immigrants. District 9 criticizes South Africa's cultural politics by saying that its culture should show more compassion to the refugees and immigrants by welcoming and by supporting immigration reform. Though these films contain one aspect of interpretation, which is using an alien race as an allegory to immigration there are many others that people discover in both films.

-Maricruz

Author determined, Not meaning

In the writing “What is an author?” Michal Foucault illlustrates the concept of the author to reinforce the belief of social constructed ideologies and connotated meanings. He strongly urges that the role of an author goes to set connotation that are not objective, rather from his own empirical thinking. Foucalt also suggests that our definition of authorship did not always exist. Society created it as a set of ideas that what someone wrote, is owned and attached to them for social economical order and organization.

The ideology of an author is engraved in the concept of “authorship” to reinforce identity in a cultural sense. It brings forth the individual conciseness to an idea that supports individualism ideology. Foucault states, “the author does not precede the works; he is a certain functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, exludes, and chooses; by which one impedes the free circulation, the free manipulation, the free composition,decomposition, and recomposition of fiction.” The author’s connotative meaning becomes ideological to the readers because their understanding of the text is agreed and they do not question it.

The author’s discourse restricts meaning to the readers due to the fact that most readers won’t read a text and create their own concept of what the reading was about. Rather, they would accept the author’s meaning as the reliable truth. As foucault states “in writing, the point is not to manifest or exalt the act of writing, nor it is to pin a subject within a language; it is, rather, a question of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly dissapears.” It is the the fundemental set of assumtion that are socially constructed to determine the author as the one who predetermined the discourse.

This strengthens the idea that though the credibility society gives to the author of written works; the author’s meaning of the works is not necessarily what should and could mean to all of its readers. Nothing that the author has written is original in the sense that they have taken and written text that through their discourse, their own social experience in the world. In which sense the fact that the author wrote the text does not imply that their own connotative meaning is strict to their definition. As foucault states “it is a matter of depriving the subject (or its substitute) of its role as originator, and of analyzing the subject as a variable and complex function of discourse.

Though the ideology of an author was socially and ideologically constructed, it also serves a socio-economic use to society. The term author serves an important role in the existance of our society in which it assigns an author the identity of who wrote the works for legal and economic purposes. The ideology of the author’s function, who has written the works owns the text, is enforced especially when liability, copy, distribution and licensing rights need to be stated. These are important to the author in order to receive credibility, to be held liable for their works, as well as to receive monetary compensation. As foucault mentions “the modes of circulation, valorization, attribution, and appropriation of discourses vary with each culture and are modified within each.”

In our capitalistic society and for the sake of social and legal order the author’s function serves a purpose. However, as an example one can look at ancient times where cultures did not yet have complex economical and judicial systems. People used to tell stories to each other and in that manner stories were told from one generation to the next. There was no importance as to who invented the story nor was it claimed as truly theirs. The story constantly evolved from one person to the next with their own experience of the world, giving the people the oppurtunity to be creative and inventive to create their own meaning.

The definition of an author was given by society as an ideological set of assumtions. Although the term authorship serves various purposes in our society it subsequently deprives readers from creating their own individual connotative meaning.

Dethroning Madonna

“Like a virgin, oh, touched for the very first time.
Like a virgin, when your hearts beats next to mine.”


Needless to say Madonna’s 1984 ‘Like a Virgin’ music video turned many heads world wide.

Although Madonna says she doesn’t want to be remembered by the song Like a Virgin, her music video left a long lasting impression, a comical one at that.

In Susan Sontags Notes on “Camp,” she says “the whole point of camp is to dethrone the serious. Camp is playful, anti-serious.”

Well, Madonna did just that. As she dances stripper like on the small boat in Italy; her legs spread as she rolls around on the bow of the boat doesn’t seem so serious and actually pretty ironic to me.

Her song was a hit. That catchy tune that was played on every radio station, it just sticks in your head. But let’s be honest here, as Madonna seems so serious it was very comical. Her lyrics say “I made it through the wilderness,” okay… but a lion randomly roaming around with her? I can maybe see the resemblance, wilderness and lions… but then her “lover” wears a lion mask. I’m not really sure I understand what relation is between the two. I quote Sontag, “many examples of camp are things which, from a ‘serious’ point of view, are either bad art or kitsch.” Well Madonna, hate to break it to ya, but this music video gives off a love hate relationship. You just love to hate it.

For Madonna’s Like a Virgin music video to be taken seriously is less unlikely. As Sontag says “the essence of camp is its love of the unnatural: of artifice and exaggeration.” Unnatural and exaggerated pretty much describes Madonna’s style perfectly. The best part about her music, performances, and videos is that she always herself. She has to go over and beyond anyone else.

Even though most people found Madonna’s music videos humorous, there were those few people who looked beyond the video and understood the lyrics more than anyone else. Those people or as Sontag explains it are the homosexuals. They have “Camp taste.” Sontag believes that homosexuals invented camp. And… in every sense I can believe this. Homosexuals have nothing to judge because they are being judged themselves. “Camp taste is, above all, a mode of enjoyment, or appreciation – not judgment.”

What can you say, gays love Madonna. Gays love human nature, they live for the moment. Camp loves human nature. “It relishes, rather than judges.” Madonna’s music is youthful, it’s playful. You can’t take her music video serious. Homosexuals live off of her music for the desire to remain youthful.

Like a Virgin will live on in our world and only Madonna will know the meaning behind her music, and how she wanted to portray her music. Almost anything can be “campy,” or have “campy taste.” It’s all within the eye of the beholder.

Crappy Firetruck

Susan Sontag in 1964 wrote “Notes On Camp” to which basically defined and explored the ideas of camp art and camp taste. Her examples of camp included the Nouveau art movement, the movies For Whom the Bell Tolls and Samson and Delilah, and even the theatrical technique of method acting. Though in contrast, whether these examples could be considered as “Camp” is entirely left open to the viewer and to his or her's own personal taste. Which left me with one question: Is there one good example of camp using Sontag's definition of “Camp” and “Camp taste?” She expresses the importance of camp being “naive” to the fact that it is camp, and must be “good because it's awful.”(Sontag 292) Her examples in the essay could just as easily be on the other side of the “camp” line if a person, for instance, loved the movie Samson and Delilah because of its believable acting. If this person believes his or her own statement then Samson and Delilah can not be considered as camp in his or her eyes.

So who can be capable of drawing a work of art that evokes the same emotional response no matter the viewer, the answer is children. No other demographic can consistently make there own art without judging eyes except for the toddler nation. They are free to explore color, size, line as much as they want and grandeur is only met with more enthusiasm. This is the way we view child art and why each and everyone of us has “camp taste.” Camp taste is a “tender feeling,” Sontag says. This enthusiasm for the young comes from our “love for human nature,” as Sontag puts it. Camp taste “relishes rather than judges, the little triumphs.”(Sontag 286) This is why even the harshest of art critics will have camp taste no matter how much they would deny it being so. Worldwide the young are put on an artistic pedestal. No matter the end result, their art is not considered to be “bad” art, and this is due to the fact that as emotional creatures we are in love with our own youthful human nature. Also childrens' art is not subjected to the demands of time. Everyday art, after time, becomes the art of an era, its meaning is lost when the era passes and no longer carries the same impact again. This is not the case for kids' art. Kid's have made the same art for centuries, maybe with different mediums but with the same passion, so even antique childrens's art is looked at with “camp taste” eyes, as long as we know it was made by a child. They are alone in this fact, their crappy firetruck will always beat your crappy firetruck because you are an adult and your firetruck sucks.

by: James Battle

Getting Biblical With The "Author Function"

In Michel Foucault's essay “What Is An Author?”, he discusses the socially constructed notion of an author, and more specifically its role in society (what Foucault refers to as the “author function”). The idea of authorship not just as name association, but even up to the control of discourse, is seen too often throughout history. This is no more plainly observed than that of the most popular book in human history: The Holy Bible.

What makes the Bible unique is that, while it was written by human beings, is seen in the Christian faith as the word of God. It was not authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etcetera. They were just channeled by God and put words to the page to spread his message. Foucault says that “an author's name is not simply an element in a discourse... it performs a certain role with regard to narrative discourse, assuring a classificatory function” (p. 107). Also, it “permits one to group together a certain number of texts... it establishes a relationship among the texts” (p. 107). The combining of the books of the Bible into one word of God establishes a single standard of discourse that originated from an intelligent designer who made the human race in its own image. Foucault suggests that an author's name elevates sources of discourse to the point where “it is not ordinary everyday speech... it is a speech that must be received in a certain mode and... must receive a certain status” (p. 107). So powerful can an author's name be, Foucault says, that the name not only personifies the source of discourse that is contributed, but also can indicate the status of such discourse amongst a society and a culture.

Foucault describes the author function as “characteristic of the mode of existence, circulation, and functioning of certain discourses within a society” (p.108) and that discourses are “objects of appropriation” (p. 108). As has been seen throughout history, the Bible (although through widely varied interpretations) has, at times, been the epicenter of society, and in even some cases, turned countries into theocracies. The establishment of the Bible as the primary (and often times only) source of discourse and the devout followers of its teachings as the ones who controlled such discourse. Foucault even describes whom he calls the “Church Fathers” (p. 113) as “transdiscursive” (p. 113), which is to author something “in which other books and authors will in their turn find a place”. The effects of the Bible and Chstian teachings are historically evident in everything from paintings to architecture to music. The authorship of such material not only represented the strong impact of the Bible on the culture of various societies throughout Western Europe, but also its attempted control of public discourse. Another use of the author function, Foucault explains, is the attachment of proper names to writings in order to identify the individual source of attempted contributions to discourse (a personifying of the material, if you will) “to the extent that authors became subject to punishment” (p. 108), and often in such times during which Christian ideology reigned, to punish blasphemers and heretics. The author function served much more than attaching a name as a matter of legal ownership of material(s) contirubting to the public discourse. It was this transition from public discourse being “an act placed in the field of... the religious and blasphemous” (p. 108) to an “object of appropriation” (p. 108).

Foucault's explanation of of the notion of authorship and of the “author function” is seen no more clearly than that of the Holy Bible (the word, or work, of God). Its Christian teachings (or even just those who call themselves Christians), even today, still have a strong place in the public discourse. So much so that “Evangelical” is considered a major player in today's American political arena. The Bible place in society as the work of God, creator of the Universe, stands as a prime example of Foucault's idea that the author is “the principle of thrift in the proliferation of meaning”.

Twilight "Pure Camp"

The vampire book series turned film series, Twilight has become a phenomenon. Twilight fans and non-fans probably enjoy the film for its "campy" style. Camp according to Susan Sontag emphasizes texture, sensuous surface and style at the expense of content. Sontag also states that it’s a certain kind of style-the love of the exaggerated the “off”, of things being what they are not. Twilight is just that, it’s a story of vampires in love with humans who love werewolves. This story is extremely exaggerated with teen vampires so rich they can go to Rome to kill themselves in the name of love. Or teenage girls who can sit in their room for months depressed that their vampire boyfriend dumped them. The movies intent was to be serious, even though many scenes in the movie are to over the top that they appear comical. The fact that the director’s intention was not that of humor emphasizes the naivety that is camp. Sontag explains only that which has the proper mixture of the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naïve is pure camp.
Some of the key scenes in Twilight to illustrate pure camp are the “glitter” scene and the “big fight” scene. The glitter scene I’m referring to is when Edward (Robert Pattison) shows Bella (Kristen Stewart) why vampires cannot be seen in the sun light. In this scene the over dramatic sparkle produces a laugh that was unintended by the director. The style or embellished style of the scene is “pure camp.” The scene is passionate, fantastic with its extravagant effects and naïve in the fact that the director’s intent was not the same as the outcome the scene received.
The big fight scene I’m referring to is when Edward gets thrown to the ground by another vampire and his cheek cracks as if his face was stone. Once again this is an exaggerated aesthetic that produces an unintended response from viewers. The fabulous face cracking effect and the naivety from the director reveals pure camp.
Whether you completely love Twilight or not you can recognize its pure camp quality especially in those two scenes. Sontag reveals how we are better able to enjoy a fantasy when it’s not our own. It’s the fantastic nature of which we don’t perceive. This is why a lot of women love and relate to this movie. Susan Sontag explains this love further by stating that, camp taste is a kind of love, love for human nature. It relishes rather than judges, the little triumphs and awkward intensities of character. Camp taste identifies with what it is enjoying. People who share this sensibility are not laughing at the thing they are labeling as camp they’re enjoying it. Camp is a tender feeling. This is the feeling that enables people to love something that is so “bad.”

Camping with "Raw Deal"

“Camp” is simultaneously one of the little pleasures of life and one of the banes of human existence. The good or bad contained in a “campy” artifact all depends on the perspective of the viewer or viewers. Susan Sontag, in her essay Notes On “Camp,” says, “The Camp eye has the power to transform experience.” While one example of popular culture may be quite enjoyable to one person because of its “camp” value, it may appear quite repulsive to another. The aesthetics of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1986 film, Raw Deal, are obviously low brow and not meant for the audience that is seeking a film experience that tugs at the heart. The “camp” value of this piece fits perfectly with Susan Sontag’s specification of how “camp” should be classified.

When first discussing the subject of “camp” it was difficult to consider what the seminal works of the mode were other than in the general sense of horror, and low budget, movies of the 1950s and 1960s. Although the over the top action of Michael Bay films combined with their lofty turn of phrase can most assuredly be classified as “camp,” there are still examples out there that far better typify the word, “camp.”

Raw Deal is a perfect example of “camp.” In the film Schwarzenegger plays what else, a cop. To be more specific, Schwarzenegger plays a cop who kills a bunch of people with brilliant style and trademark dry/cool wit.

Sontag states, “Camp rests on innocence. That means Camp discloses innocence, but also, when it can, corrupts it.” Raw Deal strives for realism but fails in spectacular fashion becoming childlike in its failures. The greatest moments of folly come at no expense to the actors themselves, but at the expense of a boom mic operator and a dummy, and by default the director. According to Sontag, for a movie to be truly “campy” it must not intend to be “campy.” The special effects of Raw Deal and the film’s cinematography, quality wise, stand up to any other movie of the decade; with the exception of typically agreed upon cinematic achievements like Alien and Blade Runner. The quality of the film making, for its time, makes the ability for the audience to spot a boom mic in the side of not one, not two, but three limousines surprising and helps to categorize the film as “camp.” It is safe to assume that the director did not intend to have the mic so visible in the shot because the film as a whole was not meant to be poking fun at anything, but to be taken seriously.

The sheer body count in Raw Deal is another factor that makes the film “camp.” One man murdering people with a final total in the high 50s would be labeled a psychopath unless his name is Arnold Schwarzenegger and he’s killing people in the name of justice. The apathy with which the film treats the act of killing is another factor that makes it “camp.” Sontag says that, “camp proposes a comic vision of the world.” Whether or not Schwarzenegger’s character was right or wrong, he would have been stopped by some sort of law enforcement in the real world, but runs a bloody muck with impunity throughout Raw Deal.

Raw Deal is a movie that connoisseurs of “camp” would be able to enjoy. The disregard for realism and penchant for lens flares that the film epitomizes makes the film typical of the 1980s and ahead of its time [sic. Star Trek (2009)] respectively. The value of Raw Deal is in its badness and according to Sontag, “It’s good because it’s awful.”

- Joel Engles -

Camp Gaga

In Susan Sontag’s Notes on “Camp,” she discusses the cult phenomenon of a sensibility known as “camp” which is a love for the unnatural and the exaggerated. Different forms of “camp” can be seen through the arts, furniture, cinema, and everyday life.”Camp” converts the serious into the frivolous of tastes with “Camp vision,” a Camp way of looking at things. (Sontag, 277) With the aestheticism of Camp and Camp vision, it can transform how someone sees the world and change the viewers’ experience. There are many things that are inferred to be of a serious quality but are “camp” due to the eccentric, exaggerated obscurity in its style. There is no judgment in camp, just acceptance for things that are outside the seriousness which many seek in art and people. Traditional passing of judgment is not received through the Camp taste because it is the appreciation of Camp that is at the essence of its style. My example I will use to explain Susan Sontag’s Camp is the pop icon, Lady Gaga.

Stressed in Sontag’s notes on Camp #21 is the notion that, “Camp rests on innocence,” [Sontag, 283). Lady Gaga would be a pure or naïve form of Camp by Sontag’s definition because she is intended to be taken seriously as an artist and is highly respected in the art world, from her fashion to her stage performances. In Sontag’s note #17, she states: Camp as a verb, “to Camp,” is a mode of seduction- one which employs flamboyant mannerisms susceptible of a double interpretation; gestures full of duplicity, with a witty meaning for the cognoscenti and more impersonal for the outsider.” To relate this to Lady Gaga would be to judge her based on her staged theatrics and outlandish costumes, it would be easy as an outsider to say it is an attention seeking tactic to draw attention to her flamboyant mannerisms as fake or intended Camp but Lady Gaga’s well known style today is pure because it is Camp. She believes in the art of fashion that is very uncommon to an average person but highly respected in the world of French Vogue. The “straight” public sense of Lady Gaga is to see her as bizarre or purposely controversial. To see her as Camp one has found Lady Gaga “as a private zany experience of the thing.” (Sontag, 281)

Sontag’s note #23 is that Camp is a seriousness, a seriousness that fails which personifies Lady Gaga’s public persona because the absurdity and frivolousness of her lifestyle are of a serious nature yet fail because she is seen as a freak show or circus act. Here Sontag says the perfect combination of Camp is “the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naïve.” (Sontag, 283) The purity found in the Camp equation is the contrast to what is perceived as the norm. Camp holds a different set of standards, in which there are none and has an open mind to the theatricality of life in which seriousness is thrown to the wayside.

There are also similarities between Camp and the homosexual community that parallel in many ways. Camp is often associated with homosexuals, not as a whole but is very common and mainstream amongst their creative communities. As Sontag discusses in note #51, “while its not true that Camp taste is homosexual taste, there is no doubt a peculiar affinity and overlap.” She explains in further notes that Camp plays on not being serious relating to homosexual’s desire to remain youthful. Lady Gaga has become an icon of not only pop culture but also the gay community because of her androgynous perception that takes her oversexed image and combines masculinity among her feminine features. Lady Gaga is a strong example of Camp in society today because she is eye catching, yet she is often misunderstood though appreciated in Camp communities for her serious work ethic that fails and releases a playful persona behind her fashion and public image. The fact that she has become a voice and icon for the homosexual community also highlights her Campiness and acceptance amongst “the aristocrats of taste.” (Sontag, 290) Camp style is not good taste or bad taste but the enjoyment and appreciation for exaggerated sensibility. Lady Gaga preserves a pure form of Camp in pop culture.

~Tiffani Wilshire

The 16 year old that "knows" love

Individuals enjoy music. Regardless of the genre, music is meant to be enjoyed. Music may be parody, satire, or horrible, either way, the purpose of music is meant to be liked. Popular music is usually the music that is at the top of most music charts. Pop music is different from rock, R&B, and rap because if those genres are popular on music charts they will be considered pop music. For this blog I will explain why Pop music, more so Justin Bieber, is camp.
Justin Bieber is currently a well know pop singer. The kid has an over grown bowl hair cut and is usually dressed with tight jeans, sneakers, a solid colored T-shirt and jacket, the “skater look.” Justin is 16 years old singing about love and heart ache without the deep understanding of the emotions that have girls flocking to him. Yet, this kid is respected, interviewed, and promoted by older. It’s a joke.
A song titled “Baby”-
For you, I would have done whatever
And I just cant believe we ain't together
And I wanna play it cool, But I'm losin' you
I'll buy you anything, I'll buy you any ring
And I'm in pieces, Baby fix me
and just shake me til' you wake me from this bad dream

I'm going down, down, down, down~
And I just can't believe , my first love won't be around
The lyrics are camp because the child does not have the life lived experience to understand the words he is really singing about. The intention of the kid is not to come across as a joke but listening to his music from an adult perspective has life experience. The significance and understanding of love I had at his age was completely juvenile. More so I think it is hilarious that adults gave him permission to sign such songs.
The argument can be made that Justin a puppet in a bigger scheme for record execs to cash in on the “cute kid with the great voice.” However, the kid sounds immature, as though the pre-pubescent child could easily be mistaken for a girl. His vocal strength is nothing comparable to a young Michael Jackson or Justin Timberlake. Needless to say, the kid has sold out concerts.
His music is continually played on radio stations. His songs seem to me everlasting, despite if I change the station; it’s him on radio station. In all his songs there is an over emphasis on this boy being in love. Its exaggerated how seriously this kid is in love. The innocence of the child and the serious meaning he is trying to relate to it makes his music camp. The child is not trying to do anything outlandish or humorous; however, to an adult the kid is rather comical.

Camp Girl

The photograph seen here is very controversial, yet there is a lot to be said about whether this is a matter of good taste or bad taste. You see a picture of a white girl in her early 20s wearing a painted dollar bill over her nude body. Starting just above her breast and ending just below her bikini emphasizing the sexual nature of the photograph. Susan Sontag’s article on Camp describes in #25 that “the hallmark of Camp is the spirit of extravagance”. Some might say that this photograph is not extravagant at all being that she is not even wearing clothes how on earth could this be an extravagant picture. One’s interpellation into saying such things about this photograph is the essence of my essay. There are many connotations a person can take from this photograph. Prostitution is a somewhat obvious connotation of a nude woman juxtaposed with money. Although one could also connote high fashion from the fact that she is wearing the money and therefore, is emphasizing that clothes are not cheap. She represents the outlandish profligate of fashion in every sense. The fact that she is nonetheless wearing a finely detailed work of art demonstrates that her apparel is extravagant. The formal definition of extravagant is characterized by excessive or wasteful spending. I’m sure that the painting did not cost nearly as much as a normal outfit would therefore it is extravagant.

According to Sontag, an essential element of pure Camp is seriousness, a seriousness that fails. #23 states that “not all seriousness that fails can be redeemed as Camp, only that which has the proper mixture of the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naïve”. The photograph shows that she is not laughing about the decorum of her body. She is actually somewhat staid in her position in front of the camera nude. The expression on her face and her body are peculiarly oxymoronic. There is a sense of seriousness about her artwork that really is quite extraordinary. The Camp comes from the juxtaposition of a normal innocent looking girl with an offensive piece of “clothing”. You may be asking yourself, “ok I understand this, but why does this matter?” Why does anyone care if this girl is exposing herself in a disgraceful way? Why is it disgraceful and not beautiful?

The importance of this picture is that taste of the audience which is viewing it. Taste is a subject Sontag discusses in depth about in her article. There is nothing more decisive than taste itself. Ineffably, taste has dominion over our ideologies which constitutes our perceptions. That of which this girl is a hot chick who is a gold-digger, or that of which she is a beautiful woman painted with a detailed work of art. Artwork has always had to bear with harsh criticism and disapproval making the girl wearing it subject to irreverence regardless of her intent. There is no clear message the audience member is supposed to take from this picture it is simply a matter of taste. The one thing that is clear is that her outfit although extravagant is not meant to be interpreted as such.

David Sharvit

Spend A Weekend At Camp Avatar

In the essay “Notes on ‘Camp’” Susan Sontag illustrates with great detail her extensive definition of a certain sensibility which goes by the cult name “camp;” including what criteria she requires for something to be considered “camp.” Camp can be applied to cinema, art, music, objects, even people. But this blog entry will focus on film, specifically James Cameron’s Avatar. Avatar meets the majority of Sontag’s criteria to be considered “camp,” whilst becoming the highest grossing film of all time. It is doubtful Cameron would consider his cinematic triumph “campy,” but he’d be lying to himself and further proving the argument for film’s “campness” by displaying his naivety as the author whose production became camp unintentionally.

The innocence of the author is integral to Sontag’s view of “pure camp.” According to Sontag an author can produce something “camp” intentionally but to achieve “pure camp” the author can not be camp on purpose. After smashing box office records with the film Titanic, Cameron had much to live up to with Avatar. It is difficult to speculate if he intended to make the highest grossing film ever, but one could assume his goal was to make something extraordinary; a serious film that could be enjoyed by a global audience.

While executing those intentions, Cameron made a spectacle of a film whose style is far more extravagant than its substance; so extravagant and stylistically intense, the audience can get lost in the sheer “campness” of the film and resist interpellation from the serious message encoded in Cameron’s work. The viewers become so entrenched in the vivid 3-D special effects wizardry, the emotional aspects of the film are cheapened. With every corny line, weird glowing plant, or enormous CGI explosion, audience members are sunk deeper into the camp world of Avatar and grow further distanced from the story’s morals and a social commentary which applly heavily to present day global entanglements and the never ending quest for lucrative energy sources.

Sontag says “Camp is art that proposes itself seriously, but cannot be taken altogether seriously because it is “too much.” Anyone who has seen Avatar can attest to the film being “too much.” Too much aquamarine, too much CGI, too much time (the film is nearly three hours long), too much 3D, even too much social commentary. Often audiences love “too much.” After all, it is the most lucrative film of all time.

Textually, Avatar’s exaggerations operate seamlessly within the film: beyond the absolute saturation of vivid colors and detailed landscapes; the films characters are exaggerated as well. There is the exaggerated villainous colonel who is totally ruthless and “over the top” to the exaggerated hero who speaks in clichés whilst overcoming his physical handicap to the exaggerated nature loving scientists and the extremely exaggerated peace loving alien people the “Na vi.” The film is littered with exaggerated clichés as nearly every scene pushes the audience to the edge.

With all of Avatar’s “campness” it manages to defy some of Sontag’s criteria. Sontag says, “Ordinarily we value a work of art because of the seriousness and dignity of what it achieves. We value it because it succeeds in being what it is and, presumably, in fulfilling the intention that lies behind it.” It is safe to say Cameron and Avatar achieve a straightforward relation between intention and performance but here is where I disagree with Sontag. Yes, Cameron met his goals, but the film is still camp.

Another strange contradiction is how the film was panned by many critics with “refined tastes,” meeting yet another criterion for “camp” but oddly enough, the film is nominated for many Academy Awards, including the prestigious Best Picture and Best Director. Even Avatar’s nominations speak to its “campness.” No accolades are being paid to the film’s actors and actresses or the film’s writing. This feeds the argument of style over substance. The story is recycled mix of the tale of Pocahontas and John Smith meets the Smurfs meets Dances with Wolves. The acting is average while some accomplished players like Sigourney Weaver can not elevate their characters beyond the cliché lines scripted for them.

So, is the highest grossing film of all time just a piece of camp or an artistic masterpiece? Suppose it can be both. Perhaps a big campy eyegasm is what the world was looking for and Avatar gave it to them gift wrapped. However, let us hope Avatar’s “campness” will not cause too many audience members to become detached from the film’s important message of peace and harmony with one’s world and neighbors.

-author does not exist

I'm Just a Sweet Vampiric Transvestite From Transsexualvania: The Self-Awareness of Rocky Horror Picture Show's Camp vs. Twilight's Unintentional Camp

Susan Sontag's Notes on “Camp” describes the different criteria for a work of art to be considered “camp.” There is a discernible amount of “camp” in the two films that I will be comparing to and the different types criteria of “camp” that they fall under, The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Twilight respectively.

Twilight and The Rocky Horror Picture Show fall under some of Sontag's criteria, but both films illustrate two different types of “camp” as explained in criteria #18:

“One must distinguish between naïve and deliberate Camp. Pure Camp is always naïve. Camp which knows itself to be Camp (“camping”) is usually less satisfying.”

Twilight is meant to be taken seriously, yet the delivery of the dialogue and certain key scenes take the film into a whole other level of absurdity. The film is based off of a series of popular novels which also lend themselves to “camp.” Twilight fits under the #19 criteria because of its unintentional humor. Sontag's 19th Criteria states:

“The pure examples of Camp are unintentional; they are dead serious.”

The dialogue in Twilight fits this criteria not because of the way it is written, but the delivery of the dialogue by the film's principal actors Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. Stewart delivers her lines in a dry, dead pan and awkward manner, as if she is trying to get herself fired from the production of the film, while Pattinson's delivery is melodramatic and ridiculous. The intention of the film is not meant to be a comedy, but a romantic thriller about vampires and werewolves in love with humans.

In one of the key and most absurd scenes in the film, Edward (Pattinson) takes Bella (Stewart) to a secluded part of the woods. She asks Edward why he doesn't go out into the sunlight, despite knowing that he is a vampire. Edward proceeds to show her what happens when he exposes himself to the sunlight. The end result is Edward “sparkling” and saying “This means I'm a killer!” The sparkling in the sunlight is a notable trait among vampires in the Twilight universe. This scene and the dialogue delivery takes Twilight into the level of “Pure Camp.”

The Rocky Horror Picture Show on the other hand, is a film that is aware of its “campiness” and an argument can be made that its intended “camp” makes the film less enjoyable. Sontag's 20th criteria explains this idea as well:

“Probably intending to be campy is always harmful.”

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is self aware of its own “Camp.” The film was created in such a manner in which it was not meant to be taken seriously. The musical numbers are extravagant, the acting is greatly exaggerated, and the avant-garde set design and costumes all lend to self-parody. The film is intending to be campy, which takes away the innocent humor of the film.

In one notable scene, Dr. Frankenfurter (Tim Curry) comes out singing “I'm just a sweet transvestite, from Transsexual...sexualvania!” to his guests after the “Time Warp” musical number, in black lingerie, stockings, make-up and a pearl necklace. This scene is absurd and funny, but it cannot qualify as “Pure Camp” because the film is aware of its self-parody and its own “camp” factor.

"Camp" reinforces ideology which is utilized to separate certain types of people based on their tastes. The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Twilight have their own respective audiences. Rocky Horror Picture Show fans religiously go to the midnight showings to sing along to the musical numbers, add their own commentary and throw objects at the screen. Twilight and non-Twilight fans appreciate the unintentional “campiness” of the films and also insert their own commentary and jokes. The most important thing to remember is that it's not about the ideology of aesthetics and taste, but the entertainment and happiness that audiences of both films experience when viewing them with or without their own “camp” eyes.

-Maricruz

The photograph I have chosen is showing a man standing in the peril effects of a 7.0 earthquake in Haiti. He is standing with his hands gesturing outwards from his side with a grimace look at the photographer taking the photograph of him. His gesture is implicating a sense of desperation and sorrow as the reflecting rubble surrounding him does as well. The black man is also wearing a shirt with a picture of Barack Obama. This evidently shows his affection for the achievement of a fellow person of color in a primarily Eurocentric society. However, even though he is proudly wearing such a political symbol it is somewhat ironic that he is looking for help in such devastation while shrugging the American photographer. This connotes a feeling of betrayal as you see no one attempting to pick up the debris left behind. Barthes states in his essay, The photographic message, “Connotation is not necessarily immediately graspable at the level of the message itself, but it can already be inferred from certain phenomena which occur at the levels of the production and reception of the message.” This photograph represents destruction at its most pivotal moment and cannot be explained with words rather lived only through being in that exact place at that exact time.

Ideally, in the general sense of the term, there would be rescue workers seen in this photograph as soon as the disaster struck. Although the light in this photograph is natural sunlight, the subject is in the shadow with a small portion of light on his face and has a depressing look since his black skin correlates to the disaster that is lit up behind him. The shadow makes him look even darker than normal which intensifies the tragedy. Even Obama who is black has a lighter skin tone that is the only sense of hope in this picture at all. There is a clash of connotations with the American flag behind Obama on the shirt symbolizing freedom and hope with the intense light of the sun on the debris representing tragedy. However, it is not neglect on the part of America that debris still lie in the streets of Haiti. As a matter of fact, American rescue workers from the Red Cross started showing up just days after the catastrophe. Therefore, the oxymoronic Obama shirt symbolizing freedom and equality coupled with the devastated subject in this photograph is not so much paradoxical.

According to Dyer’s essay The light of the world he states that, “People who are not white can and are lit to be individualized, arranged hierarchically and kept separate from their environment. But this is only to indicate the triumph of white culture and its readiness to allow some people in, some non-white people to be in this sense white.” Although, Obama is a black man he is considered to be in a cultural sense white due to his light complexion and proper dialect. In every sense of the photograph one could only imagine that if the subject were a white person there more than likely would be a rescue worker in this photograph. Otherwise, the connotations would be markedly publicized that a white person wearing an Obama shirt is left alone in the rubble with a newly black President. Again, the description of this photograph cannot be as precise as the actuality of the subject juxtaposed with debris gesturing a protest to the photographer. He has not had such a situation occur in his lifetime most likely. It certainly has not happened in my lifetime. For that reason this photograph is unique and possesses a visceral aspect to it that will never be translated to reasonable thinking.

The denotation of this image is a man appearing in a white light (cast from above) and is leading a group of men away from a gray, stormy place. He is holding a flag and wearing a look of conviction and determination on his face. In this particular example, there is a propagandist value with obvious connotations. The man is Hitler and he is leading the Nazis. This image is presented as a poster and serves to enforce a fascist agenda. It connotes, given the knowledge of past historical events, an image of Germany’s totalitarian leader, who committed the heinous crime of genocide.

This image is closely related to the argument Richard Dyer makes in The Light of the World. Dyer discusses the use of lighting in film and photography, and what connections metaphors of light can make, such as its connection to religion. He makes several references to biblical literature: ‘Let there be light’; ‘He was a burning and a shining light’; ‘Lighten our darkness we beseech thee oh Lord’; etc. He further elucidates by saying, “The culture of light mobilized such metaphors but also gave them a distinctive and decisive twist. The intense interest in literal light became associated with the human possibilities of knowing and spreading knowledge” (109). The poster of Hitler is imagery as propaganda with an apparent religious aspect, that being the light beaming on him from the sky (or heavens, rather). The image portrays a dark and weary world, with one man in a distinct white light. In the image, Hitler becomes a messiah figure, wielding the Nazi flag and eager to lead his people into the light and out of the darkness. By employing this technique to mobilize the German people into action, he has perverted and distorted the common conception of light representing “good” and black and darkness representing “evil”. Light is strategically placed on him, whereas all else is dark, such as the clouds, in an almost looming manner.

The image’s propagandist value is that it makes celestial suggestions and connotations, which Dyer relates to light and the placement of light upon a figure. “Heaven had been seen as a place of light since around the twelfth century. Film was quick to realise [sic] this. Following Belasco, pools of light were used for scenes of spiritual devotion and conversion” (118-19). When taken in this context, the poster further embodies Hitler as a biblical character, one there to save Germany. The light above his head makes a construction, as Dyer refers to. “The culture of light makes seeing by means and in terms of light central to the construction of the human image” (121). He also goes on to reiterate that those touched by light will apparently rule and inherit the earth, or so people believe. These suggestions and implications were displayed through various media outlets, and very much so in this particular poster.

Jessica Cotzin

Double 'O' Awesome

Many films during the 1960s can be easily dissected as simple exercises in “cool” guys looking “cool” and driving “cool” cars. A few examples of these triumphs of cinema would be Steve McQueen in Bullitt, James Garner in Grand Prix and Sean Connery in Goldfinger. More specifically Sean Connery personified the handsome debonair man of the 1960s who drove not just a “cool” car, but, an awesome car. Sean Connery as James Bond leaning on his Aston Martin DB5 in 1964 demonstrates the point that both connotation and denotation occur simultaneously in any photograph that an audience views; in this instance the photograph being the quite beautiful scene of a man in a tailored suit accompanied by a high-end sports car with the epic scenery of the Swiss Alps as a backdrop.

This literal transmission of one of the film’s promotional photographs of a reality is sufficient in itself and it is not, “necessary to divide this reality into units and to constitute these units as signs,” according to Barthe. Barthe states that, “the photograph appears as the only (graphic medium) that is exclusively constituted and occupied by a ‘denoted’ message.” Barthe is correct, but while there are always denoted messages in photography there are also connoted ones. This photo can be literally translated as one man, one car and some mountains. This interpretation, although it is present in the photo, is very basic and, this photo especially, lends itself to more interpretation than just the dissection of its basic elements.

There is, in addition to, the denoted meaning, a connoted meaning. Each element of the photo adds to the overall sense of the photograph being an image of “smooth” personified and a man that is to be admired that goes beyond the literal interpretation of man, car and mountains. The car evokes the impression of high-end. Although the entire automobile cannot be seen, and only a trained eye can identify it as an Aston martin, the perfectly squared and glossy door along with the artistic embellishment on the fender allow the viewer to deduce that this is not an ordinary grocery getter. The car is not the only element that contributes to the overall “wealthy” connotation of this image; the scenery does as well. The mountain road that Connery is standing beside is not in a bustling city with many destinations and attractions; it is in an area that only those with the leisure time to get there would be able to partake of. Sean Connery’s posture while leaning on the Aston portrays him as a man of action, but not one that is quick to rush into things, which fits in perfectly with the character of James Bond that he plays. The suit, fitting Connery to a “T,” that he is wearing also evinces this “man of class and action” connotation. It does not look at all like an off the rack selection from Sears. Connery’s facial expression; being that it is a relaxed one on a handsome man inspires envy on the part of the male viewer and affection on the part of the female audience.

Denotation and connotation occur simultaneously in this photograph of Sean Connery as James Bond. One is not independent of the other; whatever photograph an audience takes in will be able to be taken in at a surface level and then dissected until all that is left to do is take out a pair of scissors.

- Joel Engles -

While the Wife is Away Tiger Will Play

For the February 2010 issue of Vanity Fair is an image of Tiger Woods drastically different from any image the public is used to seeing. Tiger is displayed rugged, sweaty and holding dumbbells in each arm, his shirt is off and muscles protrude. The image unveils a tempestuous provocative man not normally associated with Tiger. When Tiger is on the cover of a magazine the photo regularly depicts him in motion of his swing. Most images of Tiger resemble a typical golfer. He is in usual Golfer attire, a Nike baseball cap, cotton slacks, and collard polo. Tiger’s image is synonymous with a clean cut athlete because of his work ethic, sportsmanship, beautiful model wife, and capabilities.
Early in the morning of November 27th, Tiger Woods drove his Cadillac Escalade into a neighbor’s fire hydrant in Orlando Florida. It would be days before Tiger would make an official statement and a matter of time before the image most held of Tiger would vanish like smoke in the air. It was later revealed that Tiger was driving away from his wife who was trying to attack him after finding out about his adulterous affairs. Tiger had a plethora of women in different cities from New York to Las Vegas, $60,000 escorts, drug binges, and monthly allowances to keep his women quiet.
The cover of the Vanity Fair shows Tiger as he appears to the public now. This image takes him out of the sports realm and more so identifies him with sex appeal and masculinity. The image makes him fit the part of a vigor cocktail waitress- porn star loving sex crazed man. The connoted meaning of the photo is associated with sex. Shirtless and sweaty Tiger is looking into the camera. Tiger, in essence, is stripped down and exposed, much like his personal life. There is a sense of dominance and confidence; qualities women look for in choosing a mate. The image seems to strip away the squeaky clean images and ignite lustful tendencies in women. Vanity Fair, a woman’s magazine connected Tiger’s new image to women by resonating feelings of sexual prowess. The photo parades why women found him to be irresistible.
The photo reinforces Tiger’s new public image. In the book Practice of Looking Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright make the example that placing images into the public eye can influence the public and label. Strurken and Cartwright explain, “simply by taking Simpson’s image out of the context of the police file and placing it in the public eye, Time and Newsweek influenced the public to see Simpson as a criminal even before he had been placed on trial. The new revelation of OJ possible being associated with murder changed his super star athlete image and media outlets reinforced the “criminal” image of OJ.
The same is being done currently with Tiger. The photo of Tiger was taken in 2006 and was never used because Tiger as a “sex symbol” was not fitting of the idea the public held until recently. Now that Tigers image has been tarnished the public can perceive and are aware of his extramarital affairs and activities. The photo appears as who he is instead of a character.

Distant Innocence

Tiffani Wilshire

It is in black and white. Everything you need to know is right before your eyes. A weak, Vietnamese man with squinted eyes stands in the forefront of the still photograph as a gun is held to his head by a man with no grimace or remorse on his face, just cold blooded murder as the man is shot and killed. The photo is infamous and startling today as it was in 1968 when it was taken. In the background of the men standing in the front of the photo, there is chaos. It can be inferred by the viewer that this is a time of war for the region and instantly questions arise as to who is this man being shot, what did he do to deserve this punishment? Who is killing him and why is the U.S. soldier standing in the left corner of the shot allowing this to happen. There is no salvation for this man for with no interference he was murdered.


Roland Barthes believed that a photo is a form of mummification, capturing reality and going beyond a human’s ability to intervene. In this photo, the shock factor is evident as one feels helpless in assisting the man that is being killed despite the lack of knowing what the man did to deserve this, it is natural to feel as if you want to free him. To Barthes, there is a juxtaposition between what is seen in the image and what was there when it was being taken. Photos can also not allow one to forget the things that were not photographed. From the minute the message is received by the viewer, emotion is invested to what is being seen as well as our own understanding of what is being presented before us.


The denoted understanding of this photo is that a man is being shot and killed by a cold hearted killer as the soldier stands by with clenched teeth allowing the act to happen as the war zone behind them carries on. Why during all the chaos is this man worth taking the time to kill, without the context it is still not understood by the viewer? The connotation of this photo can be perceived as something that is distant to someone who lives without war in ones life, such as Americans who are represented in the photo by the soldier allowing the two men of the same race to stand next to each other as one takes the others life. If seen today for the first time it is seen to be something from a long time ago, a war in past.


Saussure believed the meanings change according to text and to rules of language which in this case is true. The reality behind this famous photo is that the man being shot is not the victim, he is the criminal who was killed after taking the lives of American soldiers in Saigon that day. According to Eddie Adams, the photographer behind the famous picture, the man holding the gun is South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan and the man who is being shot is Viet Cong captain named Bay Lop. Often times one does not learn about the subtext of what they are looking at but once it is known as in here it shifts the attention in an entirely different direction once the true identity of what was going on at the time of the photo is learned. This photo was released the next day worldwide and gave the startling notion to Americans of what was happening overseas and enraged antiwar activists who thought this was the behavior of how the United States was handling the war, stepping aside as Vietnamese men cruelly kill each other.

Bayonetta's Ideology: Underlying Subtexts in Video Games and Gaming Culture

Video games have increasingly become a part of the cultural landscape in recent decades and this form of media has been dominated mainly by men. However, in the past several decades, the number of women that play video games has increased; causing many video game developers to try to reach and appeal to the female demographic. An example of one of these games that may be interpreted as appealing to the female and/or male demographic is Bayonetta. Bayonetta's image on the front of the cover box for the PS3 and XBOX 360 gaming consoles are a perfect example of Barthes' theory on the Photographic Message, Dyer's theory on lighting and ideology.

The image on the front of the box contains an attractive woman holding guns in a skin-tight leather outfit. She is also lit in certain areas facing the moonlight, but the right side of her face and other areas of her body have a shadow cast against her. The lighting on the front cover of the box says many different things. One way to interpret the lighting on the left side of her face and the shadow on the right side, is that she has a good and evil conscience. Another interpretation would be that the darkness of the night and the light of the moon bring a more balanced reflection of the light and shadows that surround her. This exemplifies that she is balanced in terms of all things that are “good” and “evil,” which are other forms of ideologies that exist in the realm of cultural and historical knowledge. It is interesting to note that Bayonetta is glowing in the moonlight, which brings a quote from Dyer's The Light of the World into mind: “Idealised white women are bathed in and permeated by light. It streams through them and falls on to them from above. In short, they glow. They glow rather than shine.” In the ideology of female protagonists in video games, they are often white, mainly European or Asian and are mostly dressed in skimpy outfits. Bayonetta's image is the “ideal” message because she is seen as attractive due to her glowing within the moonlight, appearing distinctively European and in a skintight outfit. The reality of this image is that some women and men do not feel the same way or hold this “ideal.” For instance, some men and women may ask “why does she have to be in a skimpy outfit if she is the heroine,” or “why does she have to be white or European when she can have darker skin and a different ethnic background?”

Some would interpret this image as a woman who is powerful and in control, while others would read the image as a form of violence that is sexualized since she is holding her guns while wearing her black, leather outfit. Within the ideological sphere of feminism, specifically third wave feminism, a woman who uses a weapon that is seen as a phallic symbol, is considered powerful and in control. Barthes' describes the symbolism of certain objects in images in the Photographic Message stating that “the interest lies in the fact that the objects are accepted inducers of associations of ideas or, in a more obscure way, are veritable symbols.” The guns act as objects that contain many different meanings to many different people. The guns that Bayonetta is holding represents what many interpret as a phallic symbol or a tool of violence. Guns in the cultural and historical context symbolize different things. Guns can be seen as dangerous, powerful, evil, masculine, violent, authority, respect and in some cases, sexual. One can see Bayonetta as being powerful, sexy and an authority figure because she is holding guns or can be seen as dangerous, evil and masculine.

The overall goal of the game itself is to appeal to a wide audience, especially women. The image on the other hand sends many different and conflicting messages, one of which can be seen as appealing exclusively to men and reinforce the ideas of patriarchy and misogyny.

-Maricruz Gonzalez

Mass Pressure, Mass Agenda, Mass Consumption

Referencing "The Photographic Message," the pictured FedEx advertisement has both “denotative" and "connotative" meanings as referred to by Roland Barthes. The public is generally bombarded by “in-your-face” commercial art like “Buy these shoes!” Or “This could be You!” Other ads hide social and historical connotations that lay just beneath the surface of ads that play into our ideological tendencies. This distinction of what is actually known and what is implied is the struggle for every advertisement. Can this be construed the wrong way? Can we get away with this subject matter and it still be edgy and cool? These are questions advertising agencies face daily. At first glance, this is a seemingly harmless photo of one man's hands handing off a trumpet to another man through a FedEx box. Innocent right? One can assume that this simply implies that their mailing service provides an important day to day roll in one's life by delivering what is near and dear to the heart. This is only the facade that you are responsible to take from this image and is placed there by the advertisers' themselves.

The ad uses our connotative preconceptions of racial class simply by telling the audience who is giving and who is receiving the trumpet. Both the man's hands in the picture are ambiguously placed where one could not decipher who is actually receiving the trumpet, but they imply that the lower gentleman is receiving the trumpet by using our stubborn ideologies of racial social class. The hands from above are that of a seemingly naked white man, giving us no further details about who this mystery man is, was, or could be, this lack of identity and the iconic image of hands from the sky connotes a holy being. This deity happens to be a white male, giving whites superior power in the photo. In contrast, the hands receiving the trumpet are that of an African American man in a business suit. Whether this is alluding to the jazz culture of America or to the business class, compared to a god, he is shown as the weaker man. Even the mere fact that he is the one at the bottom symbolizes struggle and having to look up for answers. Whether it be to a white Man or to a white God, if multiple arguments can be made that an advertisement portrays the African American people in a negative light, should it be condemned or should it be allowed to prove generations of racial conditioning.

Even this conceptually simple advertisement, maybe without even realizing it, is perpetuating the idea of racial class and instilling prejudice in today’s society. Mass media utilizing stereotypes is only a trap for the weak willed who choose to conform to being “the audience.” If a generation of advertising agencies carefully constructed all their ads with the intention of not furthering negative social ideological beliefs, America could take the power from negative aspects of life and eventually eliminate them from society. To function today an advertisement must look beyond their strategy and realize the social ramifications of such an image. By doing this, future generations will not be subjected to the ignorance of the past.


-James Battle

Analysis of "Breaker Boys"

Breaker Boys - 1910
What Charles Dickens did with words for the underage toilers of London, Lewis Hine did with photographs for the youthful laborers in the United States. In 1908 the National Child Labor Committee was already campaigning to put the nation’s two million young workers back in school when the group hired Hine. The Wisconsin native traveled to half the states, capturing images of children working in mines, mills and on the streets. Here he has photographed “breaker boys,” whose job was to separate coal from slate, in South Pittston, Pa. Once again, pictures swayed the public in a way cold statistics had not, and the country enacted laws banning child labor.

In the Barthes reading “The photographic message”, Barthes takes the position that, while an image “is not the reality but at least it is its perfect analogon”. Furthermore, he asserts that this “analogical perfection” is what “to common sense, defines the photograph”. (p. 135)

It is with this description that Barthes is making the assertion that the photographic medium is the most accurate re-creation of reality that is available to human beings. He goes on to say that, on an analytical level, many would refer to as 'common sense', the photograph and perceived reality go hand-in-hand.

Barthes goes on to explain the dual messages that comprise any piece of media. The first being a denoted message (the analogon itself) and the connoted message, which Barthes defines as “the manner in which the society to a certain extent communicates what it thinks of it” (p. 136). Barthes refers to the denotation (denoted meaning) as the analogon because, as the analogon is the most accurate representation of reality and doesn't require a code, such is with the denoted meaning of a message. As with both the analogon and the denoted meaning, there is no code, hidden message or even opinion involved.

The image I have chosen for this first blog entry is entitled “Breaker Boys” and it was taken in 1910 by Lewis Hine, who was hired by the National Child Labor Committee to take images chronicling the life experience of a child laborer. It was this image especially, a collection of boys whose job it was to separate coal from slate, that roused public outcry against child labor and thus, bring this issue to the forefront of public discourse and propel government action to curtail such practices.

The denoted message with “Breaker Boys” is, as with most denoted messages, rather straightforward. It is a collection of boys all wearing similar garb and all especially filthy. None in the picture can be seen to be smiling, or anything of the like. Most seem to be apathetic, curious and/or tired.

The connoted meaning, on the other hand, is immense as society's reaction to it and others like it. To American society just after the turn of the century, this picture represented a shameful reality: one that involved the exploitation of children as laborers. Even further, this picture represented the horrible working conditions in dangerous jobs during that period, and the use of children in labor took away from their education. The NCLC's intent in hiring Hine was to show the rest of the country what was really happening with their youth and to get them back in the classroom where they belonged. The denoted meaning of this image adds depth to the connoted meaning as well. These children have the faces of working men. They are together, not as a classroom or an athletic team. They are children, many of whom appear to be younger than adolescence, who have taken the role of the working man in more than just labor. During the time of this picture, the two million or so children literally embodied the working man, and this image represented that undeniable fact to the American people.

Barthes says specifically in reference to captions that they have a “parasitic message designed to connote the image” and that the image “no longer illustrates the words; it is now the words which, structurally, are parasitic on the image” (p. 142). He does go on to say that text can do anything from “duplicate” the image “to be included in its denotation” (p.143) to “amplifying a set of connotations already given in the photograph” (p. 143). I find all of these points to be applicable to the caption of my image, as there is a lot of connotative meaning, but it could very well be denotative in the year 2010 as a historically important photo. Ultimately, in 1910, it didn't take a caption for mothers and fathers to understand the magnitude of that image.

- William Jennings

Ever Changing Reality

Barthes’ concept that a picture represents the literal reality does not strongly allocate the idea that reality is in the eye of the beholder. One reader’s view of reality may not be the reality of another person.

The denotative meaning of a picture is viewed as the explicit literal meaning. However, the reader of the picture will go further to create a connotative meaning based on what the individuals interpret the image based on their own thoughts. The reader of the message within an image has already been rooted with the ideologies that they have gained from an early age. The connotation which they use to decode the message have already been predisposed with in their physical, historical, social, cultural background and the values which they acquired.
Though people may not think that there is a code within an image and that an image represents a prefect and accurate view of reality, they will formulate and convey an idea of the message from their predisposed point of view. The press provides a text to an image to the reader the idea has already been given therefore defining the connotative meaning to the reader.

This I believe could be misleading to the reader who may be unfamiliar with an issue or discouraged to formulate his own denoted meaning.In my selected picture I chose to discuss a topic that is controversial in order to establish my idea that reality illustrated by an images is read through a person’s own view of reality.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has last thousands of years and the views and feelings about the issue have been rooted in the minds and souls of its involved population. The Israeli’s believe that they have returned to their promised land and gained the territories as was promised to them by the British and the 1947 UN partition to create the Jewish homeland. The Palestinians on the other hand believe that the land is theirs and that the Jews are occupying it.
In this image you can see an Israeli police car with Israeli soldiers by it. You also see a group of Palestinians throwing rocks at the Israeli police.

Without text to provide meaning to the image, there could be various views of realities that could be drawn from this picture. On one side, one can argue that the reality being shown in this image is that the Israeli army is creating turmoil and imposing forceful handling on the Palestinian residence.

Another view may be that the Israeli army is trying to rectify the situation, calm down the violent protesters and protect the threatened citizens of Israel from any outburst of terrorism.
Another view could be that the Palestinians are fighting the occupation of the Israelis and are protesting by throwing rocks and terrorizing soldiers. The fact that the Palestinians are wearing ski masks and covering their faces may indicate that they are doing something iniquitous and they do not want to be identified.

The picture is taken from the Israeli point of view, which also could show the situation from a different angle than what was going on at the moment when it was taken.
Thus, any person who sees a picture naturally and inevitably creates a code to convey the message. One applies his own interpretation according to his own view of reality. Reality is never a set idea; reality is constantly changing and never perfect.

GK