If we look at postmodernism as an art, rather than a period of time, for the sake of the question, then it can be looked at like this, it comes down to the person viewing the art. There are people out there that always like to gain some sort of meaning or see some sort of beauty in art, there are people who will see some sort of obversation about the time and get a meaning that not everyone else sees and give a little smirk to show they "get it", and then there are the people that will pretend to understand just cause they see someone else smiling and they feel they should be too so they will be seen as "getting it". Art is only truely art in the first impression of a person, because then they see it for the way they want to see it. The thing about that is, that only last for a few seconds until someone either gives their opinion and that person becomes inclined to agree so they don't look foolish, or they are influnced by the folk around them to feel a certain way by observing their reactions. Though that first impression, those few seconds, art had a first impression on us. I just stay to the far right and say all art is shit, that way I never find myself in this position.
To answer the seoncd part, wheather or not it is an reactionary or progressive phenonmenon, I would have to say; both mabe? A person could argue both ways. The examples given in the TT book like Seinfeld or Andy Warhol paintings could be looked at as things that took time to see just how they were, or weren't like the art they were associated with at the time. In that same effect you could also argue that these art forms were also so different from the norm once they came out that the initial reaction to them could not be ignored, thus giving them instant postmodernism credentials. Questions about these types of things, at least to me, come down to one thing, the initial reaction that the particular art form has on a person the very first time they view it. I think the term postmodernism works better and is more definable when used as a reference of a time period rather than a style, because when people put things in the term of history or time, we love to make things definate. When people put things in terms of an art form, we love to bitch and argue why something is or isn't something.
-Corte
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Packets Tomorrow
Copier meltdowns all over campus. Craziness.
Packets tomorrow. At the Portfolio Center.
That is all.
Packets tomorrow. At the Portfolio Center.
That is all.
Monday, October 29, 2007
"Time is money." That is something that you hear a lot nowadays. For some people they agree with that to others, they do not agree with it at all. In my opinion i could go both ways with this one. IN society today almost all of the jobs pay hourly, depending on where you work you usually start off at the minimum wage and as TIME passes you get a raise. That is a perfect example to support the ideology that time is money. Another good example to support this ideology is coat check. You are basically paying somebody to hang your coat up so you do not have to waste your own time to do it yourself. It is pretty crazy because you do these things without realizing how much power each of these actions have behind it. As has been stated before, some people may disagree with this ideology which is completely understandable because some people do get paid off of commission. I am a shotgirl and that is one of the main reasons why I could go both ways with agreeing or diagreeing with this ideology because at my job i do not get paid hourly i basically get paid for how many shots i sell and i keep the tips i get, therefore i basically get what i worked for. In conclusion both time and money are two very powerful things therefore to say that one drives the other is a very powerful statement and in our society today there are many things that support the ideology that Time is Money
in a lot of todays workforce, and to many people as well, time IS money. any jobs where you are paid by the hour are just this. your wage is according to how important your time is spent working at that site, nothing more. your output at that company or job is almost arbitrary to the amount of time you actually spend working for them. incentives to work harder and improve preformance amongst people with shitty jobs are completely lost due to this "time is money" notion. however with the job market in its current conditions, these "unwanted" jobs are actually in high demand which changes these incentives to simply not getting fired.
Another fascinated thing is the material and convinence aspects of it, which strictly pretain to the ones who have enough of it to use in situations where money can help you. things like valet parking are a good example of this. why park your own car for free down the street when you can pay someone to do it for you and you save all of a few minutes. money becomes a large role in peoples live in which it does govern our own time and wheter were willing to spend money to spend less time on something or vise versa which when you break it down, is very unusuall.
Another fascinated thing is the material and convinence aspects of it, which strictly pretain to the ones who have enough of it to use in situations where money can help you. things like valet parking are a good example of this. why park your own car for free down the street when you can pay someone to do it for you and you save all of a few minutes. money becomes a large role in peoples live in which it does govern our own time and wheter were willing to spend money to spend less time on something or vise versa which when you break it down, is very unusuall.
Time and Space
1. The ideology that time is money or that time equals money is necessary to support the structure of a capitalist economy. With private ownership of the means of production or the ability to own a business, capitalism will create separations in the wealth of the society. People who can afford to start a business vs. those who can’t. The people that can’t afford to start a business are then forced to work for people who do. Since the owner of the business must spend money to get the business started, the owner feels they should make more money then the employees they have working for them. So instead of the employee’s making a percentage of the things produced, the employees are paid for the amount of time they spent producing the products. This allows companies to charge far more for the products their employees produce then what it costs to produce them. If the employees were paid a percentage of what the market value of a product was there would be much less money for the owner. If the ideology of time is money was nonexistent, the employee would not be “kept in there place” and would question why they make so little money and the owners so much.
Along with the power to kept people in their place within the business, the notion of time is money is a powerful ideology that controls how work is done within the business as well. When jobs pay hourly as apposed to per-product-produced, the company expects workers to work in a different manner. When one is “one the clock” one is expected to be working the entire time. This ideology is interesting because both the worker and the owner can abuse hourly paid positions. For example, one summer I worked for a privately owned landscaping company, and every time we took a break, even for fifteen minutes, money was deducted out of our paychecks. That same summer my friend got a job working landscaping for the city, and when he told me about his work expectations I was blown away. At his job, money was not even taken out of his check for his half hour lunch break, which in fact was always around 2 hours long. Through this example I believe we can see that the ideology of time is money can be used to exploit the worker as well as the owner (or the taxpayer in this case).
Along with the power to kept people in their place within the business, the notion of time is money is a powerful ideology that controls how work is done within the business as well. When jobs pay hourly as apposed to per-product-produced, the company expects workers to work in a different manner. When one is “one the clock” one is expected to be working the entire time. This ideology is interesting because both the worker and the owner can abuse hourly paid positions. For example, one summer I worked for a privately owned landscaping company, and every time we took a break, even for fifteen minutes, money was deducted out of our paychecks. That same summer my friend got a job working landscaping for the city, and when he told me about his work expectations I was blown away. At his job, money was not even taken out of his check for his half hour lunch break, which in fact was always around 2 hours long. Through this example I believe we can see that the ideology of time is money can be used to exploit the worker as well as the owner (or the taxpayer in this case).
p. 123, question 1
What does the old saying, "Time is money" mean? I think it means when time is wasted, money is also wasted. People who usually say this are wealthy. I have never heard a bum say this. Lawyers, Doctors, Actors etc. are notorious for saying these words. Money is an object of great importance for them. They will never have enough money to suit their needs. These people are or can be workalcoholics.
This says that people will work day and night to achieve the "American Dream" and beyond. Working hard is good for the economy, but relaxing once in a while can't hurt. Some of these people will not even go for a vacation. Working long hours can hurt your mind and body even though people will not stop their practices. The economy in the United States depends on the hardworking middle class American. Without these people, the wealthy class would not prosper.
The politics of a shop floor speeds up and slows down whenever there is a difficult decision. Office or shop politics can be very one sided; usually against your side. It's never a democratic environment on a shop floor. The workers usually get the bottom of the stick. Money is valued more than the workers sometimes. Worker compensation depends on the employer. I say it's a great thing for when your hurt, but the employers of America hate this. Time and money are spent on both sides.
The demands of organized labor or unions can be unreal, but they should get what they deserve. Employers usually go halfway with the demands. More money is sought for, but are the workers worth it? Fair is not the word I would use in this case. The value of consumer goods is priced by the company. Usually they price it to what they think it's worth. Most of the time it's not even close to the actually worth of the product. If there is no competition, they can price it as high as they want with no worry because people will buy it. People like new and flashy gizmos and Apple knows this. The iPod is a great example, Apple prices it high and gains a lot of profit. There is competition, but nothing as popular as the iPod comes close. Apple releases new versions often creating even more cash flow. Apple is smart for knowing how to market their expensive products.
This says that people will work day and night to achieve the "American Dream" and beyond. Working hard is good for the economy, but relaxing once in a while can't hurt. Some of these people will not even go for a vacation. Working long hours can hurt your mind and body even though people will not stop their practices. The economy in the United States depends on the hardworking middle class American. Without these people, the wealthy class would not prosper.
The politics of a shop floor speeds up and slows down whenever there is a difficult decision. Office or shop politics can be very one sided; usually against your side. It's never a democratic environment on a shop floor. The workers usually get the bottom of the stick. Money is valued more than the workers sometimes. Worker compensation depends on the employer. I say it's a great thing for when your hurt, but the employers of America hate this. Time and money are spent on both sides.
The demands of organized labor or unions can be unreal, but they should get what they deserve. Employers usually go halfway with the demands. More money is sought for, but are the workers worth it? Fair is not the word I would use in this case. The value of consumer goods is priced by the company. Usually they price it to what they think it's worth. Most of the time it's not even close to the actually worth of the product. If there is no competition, they can price it as high as they want with no worry because people will buy it. People like new and flashy gizmos and Apple knows this. The iPod is a great example, Apple prices it high and gains a lot of profit. There is competition, but nothing as popular as the iPod comes close. Apple releases new versions often creating even more cash flow. Apple is smart for knowing how to market their expensive products.
Money (Energy) and Time?
Money represents the ability to do work. Energy Is the ability to do work. I can use a dollar bill to buy gas for my car. That's energy. I can pay someone to come and clean my house. That's human energy. I can buy an appliance which was made with energy and uses energy. You spend currency to get energy to work for you. When there is no energy, or there is a perceived lack of energy, money essentially becomes valueless. The link of money and energy is such an important connection when thinking about money's relation to time. Sustainable energy infrastructures are crucial in assure the survival of a currency, and of a civilization. Our infrastructure IS oil and natural gas. It IS the energy source that allows everything we know to be here in existence today. They are truly indispensable to the American Dream and to our everyday lives. It is the basis of our culture, and of the population boom and all technological advancements. Oil and natural gas are finite sources. Between 2003-2006 there was not one 500 million barrel oil field discovered. To put that in perspective, earth uses 1 billion barrels of oil every 11.5 days. That means there wasn't even one discovery of a six day supply of oil. As of today, earth uses 4 barrels of oil for every barrel it finds, and that is a very kind statistic. (from the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources) It is this new energy situation that is shaping our modern political and economic landscapes.
It changes the relationship of Money and Time greatly. Economic growth is not possible unto infinity. We know that economic growth is tied directly to energy usage. Energy is not infinite. As the future unfolds, it is likely that workers time may become worth less and less, because the infrastructure that unites our culture will be become harder and harder to maintain as time goes on. Essential consumer goods will become worth more and more, because of the realization by government and people that our basis of energy comes from finite sources. Every barrel of oil discovered will increasingly become harder to obtain, and of lesser quality. Efficiency is essential in this era, which means you will likely be getting paid just enough to do your job, to actually show up for work and do your job everyday. According to Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group, "America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s." This dates back to May 2001. Looking back to how this affects everyone today, there is no way in which these ideas of limited oil doesn't affect us. JIT business models can and will continue as usual as long as it is possible for them to do so, as they tend to be efficient business models where the workers can be paid minimal, and the highest ranking officials can reap the benefits of huge paychecks, and stock investment opportunities. This model has come so far since the days of Henry Ford (my great great great uncle btw), however it will continue to evolve in our new economic landscapes. I have faith in the American Dream . I believe there is a means to escape from poverty, as I grew up in a struggling family myself, and I watched my mom struggle everyday just to pay the rent in our little studio apartment. Today we are living our own American Dream in a sense. I hope this dream will somehow be accessible to all Americans in the generations to come.
It changes the relationship of Money and Time greatly. Economic growth is not possible unto infinity. We know that economic growth is tied directly to energy usage. Energy is not infinite. As the future unfolds, it is likely that workers time may become worth less and less, because the infrastructure that unites our culture will be become harder and harder to maintain as time goes on. Essential consumer goods will become worth more and more, because of the realization by government and people that our basis of energy comes from finite sources. Every barrel of oil discovered will increasingly become harder to obtain, and of lesser quality. Efficiency is essential in this era, which means you will likely be getting paid just enough to do your job, to actually show up for work and do your job everyday. According to Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group, "America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s." This dates back to May 2001. Looking back to how this affects everyone today, there is no way in which these ideas of limited oil doesn't affect us. JIT business models can and will continue as usual as long as it is possible for them to do so, as they tend to be efficient business models where the workers can be paid minimal, and the highest ranking officials can reap the benefits of huge paychecks, and stock investment opportunities. This model has come so far since the days of Henry Ford (my great great great uncle btw), however it will continue to evolve in our new economic landscapes. I have faith in the American Dream . I believe there is a means to escape from poverty, as I grew up in a struggling family myself, and I watched my mom struggle everyday just to pay the rent in our little studio apartment. Today we are living our own American Dream in a sense. I hope this dream will somehow be accessible to all Americans in the generations to come.
p.123 #1
Time is money. Time is currency. Jobs are exchange counters. Working a pay by the hour job, you get paid for your time as if your time is a product. How much you get paid per hour is a reflection of your personal time's value. The less you get paid, the less your personal time is worth. Your time can easily be replaced with someone else's time.
Time is material. When the latest super gadget comes out, people with money but better things to do pay people with time to be bought to stand in line for them. The people with money want the super gadget but are not willing to spend their own time waiting for it. Their time is too precious to be spent waiting in line all night.
On page 113, this example was given, "members of subordinated racial groups are literally made to wait for goods and services that are delivered first to members of the dominant group." The subordinated racial groups have to wait for goods and services because they don't have the money to exchange for time.
Since workers are being paid for the use of their time, the value of consumer goods suffers. No matter the quality, the workers are paid the same. They aren't paid for what they are producing, they are only paid for their time.
Time is material. When the latest super gadget comes out, people with money but better things to do pay people with time to be bought to stand in line for them. The people with money want the super gadget but are not willing to spend their own time waiting for it. Their time is too precious to be spent waiting in line all night.
On page 113, this example was given, "members of subordinated racial groups are literally made to wait for goods and services that are delivered first to members of the dominant group." The subordinated racial groups have to wait for goods and services because they don't have the money to exchange for time.
Since workers are being paid for the use of their time, the value of consumer goods suffers. No matter the quality, the workers are paid the same. They aren't paid for what they are producing, they are only paid for their time.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Space/Time
The slogan of the modern capitalist society is "Time is Money", which is a very good summarizing modern capitalism. Long gone are the days when you were paid by the quality and the amount of product you make. It is now all about how much time you are willing to spend on the production floor. You might get a 15 cent raise if you are willing to make 100 units more by working your ass off, but is that 15 cents an hour really worth working that much harder? The fast a product can be produced the more of the product can be made within an hour, so that product can be sold more, meaning that the company makes more money if more products are made within a time. This obviously means that the quality of the product comes second to the price. People are willing to spend less on a hamburger that cost $5 than a hamburger that cost $1.
I used to work at Culver's and Chili's, at both places I worked just as hard as the other, and I was paid 5 dollars more for my work at Chili's than at Culver's. I might have made better hamburgers at Chili's, but the hamburgers I made had better quality. It was the complete opposite at Culver's, I made shitty burgers, but I made a lot more of them than I did at Chili's. Obviously from what I was paid, and the price that Chili's sold my burgers for, time isn't always the most important trait. I made more money by making better products than I did for making more of them. McDonald's and other fast food restaurants are far more successful than places like Chili's, so some people might agree with me, but the rest of American doesn't, or at least they don't care what they eat.
The entire fast food business is raised on the fact time is money. They want their workers to make the most of their hourly wage by making as much of their product, in the quickest way possible. Not only that, people "eat up" the fast food idea. Consumers view there time as money by also getting paid by there hourly service, but the view the rest of their free time just as important. That is why they flock to fast food restaurants, they don't want to waste their leisure time on something they don't care about. They would rather waste their time by watching television.
Blog 8-Pg 123-Q-1
"Time is money." means that the more time that is invested into something the more likely it is that something will come out of the effort and give someone more often than not, a financial reward. In the world of goods production, it means that the company can add more to the surplus of goods. AND--it's important to always have more than enough because it's quite plausible that we can run out of everything at ANY minute and the entire fucking planet would halt on its axis.
This culture makes it possible to make a fortune off of preservatives. Preservatives stop time, therefore, a consumer can buy article A whenever she wants and the company will not lay waste to their goods or their efforts and will still be able to reach the bottom line, safely and with more wealth than is sometimes even fathomable. Also, in the case of a film actor -- time is money! What does a film star rely on more than any of us regular people? Their appearances! And what do they need to do to keep up with them? They need to stop the markings of time that show across their faces and bodies. If they don't, then they must find an alternative income because a camera is not kind to them after a while, even though it's reality.
Let's talk about the actor some more -- this time regarding adequate compensation for services. I know that it probably takes a lot of "time and effort" to memorize an entire script and become a different person or character and make him or her believable but is it really as truly difficult as being a garbage collector who is constantly putting himself in a possibly dangerous situation? Or what about a janitor? Shouldn't anybody who is willing to clean public restrooms be well-compensated? What would we do without these people? Well, by God, we'd have to clean up after ourselves. That isn't a particularly bad thing either but we take many service jobs for granted, the people who literally make the world turn also bear its weight.
My favorite though, is the guy who puts brand decals (STICKERS) on NASCAR race cars and pockets (at most) $250,000 (annually) a year. Now, I cannot cite this information because, well, my boyfriend's brother-in-law actually has met this guy. Mike, on the other hand, works in the IT department at Metlife insurance. He is in charge of setting up vast amounts of computers, phone lines, networking, and then maintaining it every day. He brings home up to 65,000 and I know that he works hard. I've seen the effects of the stress and I know that his job calls for a lot of critical thinking and it required a good education. So, yes, Mike deserves what he gets...but he doesn't put his life in danger. So, how much are we supposed to pay those people? How much is a life worth? But I guess we should also ask, how much is the risk worth as well.
As I read the blog entries prior to writing mine I saw how all of them describe labor experiences in their daily lives. I, too, have my own stories to add to the pile. The speed variations of the shop floor are always the heaviest burdens of a menial job. I worked at Borders for a while and really felt teeth-clenching boredom when it was slow but then I also felt overwhelming and panicky feeling of anxiety when ever J.K. Rowling pumped out another tour de force. What I also felt was the effect of my managers milking the situation. Making the employees stay until 2 AM to clean up all the "magic", constantly reminding customers to pre-order the book, setting up the spectacle -- these tasks were among the changes that were added to my already-engrossing multitude of daily activities at Borders. When there were slow periods, we were told to make work for ourselves. I always scoffed at this senseless and de-constructive idea. I thought about kicking over some of the many displays or "bays", pushing scores of books off shelves, or just acting like a customer. That would be making work.
Organized labor is the reason for dispensable, practically worthless, consumer "goods". If artisans were still part of our lives then we wouldn't have to deal with items that fall short of time. BUT -- one of the main reasons that everyone is able to buy "stuff" is that it is cheap. Custom-made "stuff" would sell for how ever much it cost to make and we would probably not stand for that after a while but hopefully we would when we find that we don't have to buy another "thing" for a very long time. It's so true and it fucking sucks -- buy cheap, buy twice. Now, I don't know what the production differences are between high-end and low-end shit, but I know that there has to be. When my boyfriend and I were buying apartmentstuffs we got to the bottom of the list where it said "pots and pans" and we just assumed we could ask our parents for their extras. As it turns out, my mother wouldn't part with any of her Revereware and Steve's mother said she had no pots and pans to spare. So, quickly enough we found out that good cookware is expensive. What to do? Well, go to Wal-Mart, which is so unfortunate. We'd been using our pots and pans from Wal-Mart for a little over two years and out of the 5 basic pots and pans we bought we only have one left. But, I should have believed Wal-Mart when they said, "We Sell For Less!". I should have known that after a shorter time than necessary I would be less off when it comes to pots and pans. Now, bring on the Le Creuset! But that's cookware you need a job to buy. Probably a second. And you know, I really just don't have time for that -- nor space on my schedule.
This culture makes it possible to make a fortune off of preservatives. Preservatives stop time, therefore, a consumer can buy article A whenever she wants and the company will not lay waste to their goods or their efforts and will still be able to reach the bottom line, safely and with more wealth than is sometimes even fathomable. Also, in the case of a film actor -- time is money! What does a film star rely on more than any of us regular people? Their appearances! And what do they need to do to keep up with them? They need to stop the markings of time that show across their faces and bodies. If they don't, then they must find an alternative income because a camera is not kind to them after a while, even though it's reality.
Let's talk about the actor some more -- this time regarding adequate compensation for services. I know that it probably takes a lot of "time and effort" to memorize an entire script and become a different person or character and make him or her believable but is it really as truly difficult as being a garbage collector who is constantly putting himself in a possibly dangerous situation? Or what about a janitor? Shouldn't anybody who is willing to clean public restrooms be well-compensated? What would we do without these people? Well, by God, we'd have to clean up after ourselves. That isn't a particularly bad thing either but we take many service jobs for granted, the people who literally make the world turn also bear its weight.
My favorite though, is the guy who puts brand decals (STICKERS) on NASCAR race cars and pockets (at most) $250,000 (annually) a year. Now, I cannot cite this information because, well, my boyfriend's brother-in-law actually has met this guy. Mike, on the other hand, works in the IT department at Metlife insurance. He is in charge of setting up vast amounts of computers, phone lines, networking, and then maintaining it every day. He brings home up to 65,000 and I know that he works hard. I've seen the effects of the stress and I know that his job calls for a lot of critical thinking and it required a good education. So, yes, Mike deserves what he gets...but he doesn't put his life in danger. So, how much are we supposed to pay those people? How much is a life worth? But I guess we should also ask, how much is the risk worth as well.
As I read the blog entries prior to writing mine I saw how all of them describe labor experiences in their daily lives. I, too, have my own stories to add to the pile. The speed variations of the shop floor are always the heaviest burdens of a menial job. I worked at Borders for a while and really felt teeth-clenching boredom when it was slow but then I also felt overwhelming and panicky feeling of anxiety when ever J.K. Rowling pumped out another tour de force. What I also felt was the effect of my managers milking the situation. Making the employees stay until 2 AM to clean up all the "magic", constantly reminding customers to pre-order the book, setting up the spectacle -- these tasks were among the changes that were added to my already-engrossing multitude of daily activities at Borders. When there were slow periods, we were told to make work for ourselves. I always scoffed at this senseless and de-constructive idea. I thought about kicking over some of the many displays or "bays", pushing scores of books off shelves, or just acting like a customer. That would be making work.
Organized labor is the reason for dispensable, practically worthless, consumer "goods". If artisans were still part of our lives then we wouldn't have to deal with items that fall short of time. BUT -- one of the main reasons that everyone is able to buy "stuff" is that it is cheap. Custom-made "stuff" would sell for how ever much it cost to make and we would probably not stand for that after a while but hopefully we would when we find that we don't have to buy another "thing" for a very long time. It's so true and it fucking sucks -- buy cheap, buy twice. Now, I don't know what the production differences are between high-end and low-end shit, but I know that there has to be. When my boyfriend and I were buying apartmentstuffs we got to the bottom of the list where it said "pots and pans" and we just assumed we could ask our parents for their extras. As it turns out, my mother wouldn't part with any of her Revereware and Steve's mother said she had no pots and pans to spare. So, quickly enough we found out that good cookware is expensive. What to do? Well, go to Wal-Mart, which is so unfortunate. We'd been using our pots and pans from Wal-Mart for a little over two years and out of the 5 basic pots and pans we bought we only have one left. But, I should have believed Wal-Mart when they said, "We Sell For Less!". I should have known that after a shorter time than necessary I would be less off when it comes to pots and pans. Now, bring on the Le Creuset! But that's cookware you need a job to buy. Probably a second. And you know, I really just don't have time for that -- nor space on my schedule.
Time is Money
I am so tired of hearing this phrase at my work whenever our district manager comes in to boss us around. It's funny though because she doesn't say it to me when I'm working; she only says it to me when I am in the backroom getting water. God forbid I take 30 seconds out of the company's time to get a drink of water during a nine hour shift. That nine hour shift though is being paid to me for my time and nothing else and I am useless to Baker's Shoes in that sense. I'm sure I'm making more than whoever actually assists in making these shoes and it's weird to think about. I wouldn't even know where to begin in making a five inch, sling-back, black, patent stiletto, but what I do know how to do is listen to rich women bark out their size and then I go run in the back room to fetch it up a seven foot ladder. The actual shoes that Bakers makes, not the branded ones, are really crappy. They are impossible to break in, uncomfortable, and are really cheap so it's weird how I can slap a $89.99 sticker on it and it shouldn't be worth anymore than $30. It's really depressing how that the person involved in the actual production in the shoe is probably getting paid less than me. But then the reverse side is that my aunt is obsessed with making jewelry and spends so much time making it and gets really exicted when she gets an expensive bead and then her time equals out to nothing because there is so one there to buy it. Is it sad that I have never really thought about the whole time is money thing a lot until now? I feel like a brat for complaining about my nicely commissioned job and never really taking the time to think why I get the money for my time and other people dont.
Ch. 8 Space/Time
Time equals money--the notion that the quality of work you produce is no longer what gets you paid. It's the amount of time you take out of your daily life to help sell over-priced Urban Outfitter's shirts and pants. I may not make the clothing that I help sell at Express 5 days a week, but I spend 4-6 hours running around and folding things, and getting people the sizes that they need. I get paid more to do that than the people over in some foreign country get paid to make the stuff. If quality equaled money, how much money would any of us be making? How many people actually make products for a living? These days, the only real product sold is service, and that's where quality comes into play. Who cares if you sell the shittiest product ever--if you do it right, you keep your job. So, I think it is pretty obvious that in our capitalist society it is definitely not about the product anymore. The value of consumer goods has been lost- We have a dress at Express that is about 60 dollars, and Forever 21 apparently has practically a duplicate dress for 25.
I'm not quite sure what "the politics of the shop floor--speed ups and slowdowns" means, but I'll take a stab at it- the busiest times of a day being the most important? In that case, Saturdays (time) at Express on the magnificent mile (space) definitely mean money, especially from about 3-8 pm. So of course, that is going to be the time that the most employees are working on the floor, getting those products out to people. "You guys need to be getting these customers to spend at least $80 each and we'll get our goal.." I would hear my boss say on my walkie. Today is Sunday, and I was supposed to go into work but I got called and told I didn't need to come in. Sunday isn't a "peak" day, so my service wasn't needed. I think companies try to avoid worker compensation at all costs- teaching safety to its employees and trying to keep them from getting hurt (and having to pay for it).
I'm not quite sure what "the politics of the shop floor--speed ups and slowdowns" means, but I'll take a stab at it- the busiest times of a day being the most important? In that case, Saturdays (time) at Express on the magnificent mile (space) definitely mean money, especially from about 3-8 pm. So of course, that is going to be the time that the most employees are working on the floor, getting those products out to people. "You guys need to be getting these customers to spend at least $80 each and we'll get our goal.." I would hear my boss say on my walkie. Today is Sunday, and I was supposed to go into work but I got called and told I didn't need to come in. Sunday isn't a "peak" day, so my service wasn't needed. I think companies try to avoid worker compensation at all costs- teaching safety to its employees and trying to keep them from getting hurt (and having to pay for it).
Friday, October 26, 2007
Blog #8- Space/Time
If time is money, then my time is not worth shit. I work at the Lego store here in downtown Chicago, and I get paid... not enough. I have worked at a lot of places in my 21 years here on Earth, most of them retail, and everytime I hear that phrase, "Time is Money", I can't help but think to myself, "Is this what my time is worth to (insert shitty part time job I've ever had here). Short story here, my time is not worth "x" amount of dollars. In fact, the whole basis of paying people based on time is a bit ridiculous. I don't work very hard at the Lego store, yet I get paid the same as most of the employees there. My slacking time build rocket ships is juxst as valued as their time doing the job we are paid to do. Is that right? Don'tt answer that, I like getting paid to play with Legos.
Whatever happen to getting paid for the job you produce? We have now gotten into a world where we no longer pay for a good, but rather pay for someone else's time in manufacturing that good. I don't care how long it took Andy McDickface to make my graphic tee, I just want to pay for the cost of the actual product. The time is out weighing the prodcut these days, and that is a dangerous slop to be walking on, because now people will begin to determine the value of our time. Come to think of it, they already have with minium wages and getting paid by the hour. Is your time worth $6.50 an hour? I think I could be doing something that is much more valuable with my time versus making that $6.50. Where does it end. If they can do that, then can I charge assholes that waste my time? "Yeah, um, I didn't really care that your baseball team needs new jerseys, and I am not really a chocolate fan anyway. So for the 15 minutes you were talking to me, wasting my valuable time, I am gunna need from you, wait let me see... $1.57". I would love to do this! And also, who is the one gauging how much time is worth? By doing all this we fall into a bad place where one day there will be no more emphesis on what is being produced, but rather how much time is being used to make it, and that is no way to decide anything. Time is a precious thing, we don't have much of it here on Earth, and having it cheapened by putting a price on it is sad. Enjoy, live it, and use it to your fullest.
-Corte
Whatever happen to getting paid for the job you produce? We have now gotten into a world where we no longer pay for a good, but rather pay for someone else's time in manufacturing that good. I don't care how long it took Andy McDickface to make my graphic tee, I just want to pay for the cost of the actual product. The time is out weighing the prodcut these days, and that is a dangerous slop to be walking on, because now people will begin to determine the value of our time. Come to think of it, they already have with minium wages and getting paid by the hour. Is your time worth $6.50 an hour? I think I could be doing something that is much more valuable with my time versus making that $6.50. Where does it end. If they can do that, then can I charge assholes that waste my time? "Yeah, um, I didn't really care that your baseball team needs new jerseys, and I am not really a chocolate fan anyway. So for the 15 minutes you were talking to me, wasting my valuable time, I am gunna need from you, wait let me see... $1.57". I would love to do this! And also, who is the one gauging how much time is worth? By doing all this we fall into a bad place where one day there will be no more emphesis on what is being produced, but rather how much time is being used to make it, and that is no way to decide anything. Time is a precious thing, we don't have much of it here on Earth, and having it cheapened by putting a price on it is sad. Enjoy, live it, and use it to your fullest.
-Corte
Thursday, October 25, 2007
TT p. 123, Question 1
Time is money because workers are no longer paid based on how many or how much of a product they can produce--they are paid based on how long they sit at their desk or stand on the shop floor. Because modern technology and industrial practices make mass production so quick, simple, and cheap, corporations don't have to worry about getting a certain number of whatchamicallits out by Friday, therefore the only other way to maintain an economy is to pay workers by the hour (or salary).
But because workers are paid for their time, and not necessarily their service, the economy, and in turn society, bases everything's worth on the time it takes. A microwave can make a meal for my family in 15 minutes that used to take over an hour? That is definitely a useful product to have--I better go out and buy one. I hear those new Macs are twice as fast as my old PC--I need one of those, too. Consumers need everything done faster so they have more time for...what? If we can eat, shop, clean, and entertain ourselves faster, what is there time left over for? Certainly not family time or the pursuit of knowledge--I guess if we can get home from work faster and make our dinner faster, that leaves us more time to watch "America's Most Smartest Model" and "Two and a Half Men".
And also because of this importance of time in the workplace, unions are no longer demanding better working conditions or higher wages, but more time off--paid vacations, longer lunch hours, and cushy retirement plans. Who cares how much my hearing is damaged by those roaring machines as long as I have that extra half hour at Applebee's?
And finally, because time is money, it only makes sense to make as many products as possible as quickly as possible, which more often than not results in a shoddy product. Shoes that once took hours to make by hand are now zipped out by the thousands every day at a factory in Thailand and will undoubtedly fall apart faster than the pair carefully crafted by the cobbler.
But because workers are paid for their time, and not necessarily their service, the economy, and in turn society, bases everything's worth on the time it takes. A microwave can make a meal for my family in 15 minutes that used to take over an hour? That is definitely a useful product to have--I better go out and buy one. I hear those new Macs are twice as fast as my old PC--I need one of those, too. Consumers need everything done faster so they have more time for...what? If we can eat, shop, clean, and entertain ourselves faster, what is there time left over for? Certainly not family time or the pursuit of knowledge--I guess if we can get home from work faster and make our dinner faster, that leaves us more time to watch "America's Most Smartest Model" and "Two and a Half Men".
And also because of this importance of time in the workplace, unions are no longer demanding better working conditions or higher wages, but more time off--paid vacations, longer lunch hours, and cushy retirement plans. Who cares how much my hearing is damaged by those roaring machines as long as I have that extra half hour at Applebee's?
And finally, because time is money, it only makes sense to make as many products as possible as quickly as possible, which more often than not results in a shoddy product. Shoes that once took hours to make by hand are now zipped out by the thousands every day at a factory in Thailand and will undoubtedly fall apart faster than the pair carefully crafted by the cobbler.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Blog Question p. 92, Question 1
Most classes start and end before the next class begins. That means each room will be occupied to save for space.
Students are required to be in class on time and will be marked late if you’re late. Some instructors are strict with this rule are others are not, so it depends. In the beginning of the semester, students test out this rule to see if it sticks. If it is true, the student learns to be in class on time or is subject to be late or tardy for class. Three lates count as one absence, so it makes the problem even worse. Classrooms are working environments as in professional job sites. There is little or no play involved. Learning and working is key to every job.
Tuesday Posting
I think in every generation, there are always films, music and writings from that time that reflect what going on. Social, economical, p0lital problems are always risen in art forms and exposed to people in someway. The Sex Pistols, even though I've never really listened them, from seeing what I have seen from pictures they reflect those times. And music has such a string holding in the 60's and 70's. I think it has more an effect on people with music from the sixties allthe way until todays times just like any other major art ormedia form was there for other generations. Like radio and silent movies. There is a sence of time and place of everything and how it relates to culture and society and how we take in infornmation and art and turn it into something that is meaningful.
Sex Pistolssss
If history remains to be written and rewritten, constructed and reformulated, than seeing how the Sex Pistols would be called a major event in history is easily understandable. In the seventies as they broke onto the scene with success but also hostility, their home country saw them as a threat and a menace to society. The stature of this ground breaking punk-rock band can be seen now very clearly but back then with songs like” God Save the Queen”, the Sex Pistols were viewed as a disrespectful group of miscreants looking to sway their audience into a hardnosed havoc filled type of life.
After looking at how these punk rockers actually defined an entire sub-culture of teenagers who were fed up with normalcy, it is clear that even in present day they have had everlasting effects on popular culture. By looking at how the chaos and havoc of the Sex Pistols culture has has had everlasting effects on society it obviously can be rapped around an important movement in history. People, especially teenagers and young adults were sick and tired of being told what to do, how to act, and which path to take. Instead of falling in line and listening to what your parents, teachers, and elders were telling them to do, instead they rebelled against everything.
Why do teenagers to this day sport mohawks, dye their hair bright blue, or dress in a way that will surely get them sent straight home? The essence of what the Sex Pistols were trying to convey in their short period in the limelight was exactly what can still be found in every high school/middle school to this day. Obviously the kids who are thinking for themselves are going to wake up and not want to fall in line, and in order to express their sense of self they are left with the punk rock generations model of how to piss off authority and have a way cool new hairdo.
Kaiti g.
After looking at how these punk rockers actually defined an entire sub-culture of teenagers who were fed up with normalcy, it is clear that even in present day they have had everlasting effects on popular culture. By looking at how the chaos and havoc of the Sex Pistols culture has has had everlasting effects on society it obviously can be rapped around an important movement in history. People, especially teenagers and young adults were sick and tired of being told what to do, how to act, and which path to take. Instead of falling in line and listening to what your parents, teachers, and elders were telling them to do, instead they rebelled against everything.
Why do teenagers to this day sport mohawks, dye their hair bright blue, or dress in a way that will surely get them sent straight home? The essence of what the Sex Pistols were trying to convey in their short period in the limelight was exactly what can still be found in every high school/middle school to this day. Obviously the kids who are thinking for themselves are going to wake up and not want to fall in line, and in order to express their sense of self they are left with the punk rock generations model of how to piss off authority and have a way cool new hairdo.
Kaiti g.
Pg. 92 Q. 2
Columbia is not a traditional campus so its ideologies are different. In a formal university setting there is usually a an outdoor atrium with a statue or fountain that is dedicated or is a memorial to some founder or important person. Columbia doesn't really have a central area because it is in an urban setting. It has to share the downtown area with so many other buildings. The architecture is not Columbia's but it has existed for a lot longer, however, Columbia has added their concepts in design for common sense purposes and for aesthetic reasons. The building at 624 S. Michigan has a black and blue sign with the logo to let students know that they are at the right place but above that you see the actual name of what was once there. Internally the designers have done the most with architecture, well, interior design, because that is where the students spend most of their time. They have three reappearing colors: lime green, periwinkle, and orange. Those colors can be seen almost anywhere. The furniture is modern, chic, and hip to set a standard for the school and a sort of personality.
The space of the classroom is so so that the students are all arranged in their seats to be able to see and hear the instructor. There are four walls to make it a room and a ceiling with fluorescent light strips so that no one has to struggle to see. There is a lock on the door to either ward off intruders or late students, hah. There is also personal space so that the students are not too close to each other to be able to feel uncomfortable. That is very important in the West: personal space. It's very unlikely that Westerners would ever have to be too close to others. The exceptions of course are public transit and of course, uncomfortable situations.
There are windows with blinds so that students are not distracted and there is a big white erase board but never any working markers so that is not very practical. The door to the classroom is tall and wide enough to let everyone in with ease, the seats are made for grown bodies, the tables high enough to accommodate the chairs.
The building has heating, cooling, and carpets so that occupants can wipe off their feet thereby preventing slipping accidents. It has a fire alarm system, elevators that go to even and odd floors, stairwells that only let you out at certain floors, and benches or chairs when you get off of some elevators so that early students can sit down and study. The building runs on a tight schedule. The library and bookstore within the building open and close at certain times. The library stays open pretty late for working students, the bookstore is open during class times so that students can get a snack, a pen, or a notebook. Students' classes do not overlap and are not too short. There are blocks of classes and blocks of break time. Morning classes and night classes for everyone's needs.
The common sense of space shows us that the way of the world should work in an orderly fashion. There should really be no chaos and everyone should be patient and move along in the most reasonable way in the spaces allotted to them. For most of us, everything is designed for a human being's disposal. Some things are designed for people with disabilities but people without are also able to use such things, i.e., elevators -- common sense tells us though, that when someone with a disability needs to use an elevator that we should use an alternate way because it will make it easier for both parties. So, since most "things" are designed with the human form and mind, "things" are impossibly natural to us and it's almost unnatural to sit down and question why. How else should "things" be?
The space of the classroom is so so that the students are all arranged in their seats to be able to see and hear the instructor. There are four walls to make it a room and a ceiling with fluorescent light strips so that no one has to struggle to see. There is a lock on the door to either ward off intruders or late students, hah. There is also personal space so that the students are not too close to each other to be able to feel uncomfortable. That is very important in the West: personal space. It's very unlikely that Westerners would ever have to be too close to others. The exceptions of course are public transit and of course, uncomfortable situations.
There are windows with blinds so that students are not distracted and there is a big white erase board but never any working markers so that is not very practical. The door to the classroom is tall and wide enough to let everyone in with ease, the seats are made for grown bodies, the tables high enough to accommodate the chairs.
The building has heating, cooling, and carpets so that occupants can wipe off their feet thereby preventing slipping accidents. It has a fire alarm system, elevators that go to even and odd floors, stairwells that only let you out at certain floors, and benches or chairs when you get off of some elevators so that early students can sit down and study. The building runs on a tight schedule. The library and bookstore within the building open and close at certain times. The library stays open pretty late for working students, the bookstore is open during class times so that students can get a snack, a pen, or a notebook. Students' classes do not overlap and are not too short. There are blocks of classes and blocks of break time. Morning classes and night classes for everyone's needs.
The common sense of space shows us that the way of the world should work in an orderly fashion. There should really be no chaos and everyone should be patient and move along in the most reasonable way in the spaces allotted to them. For most of us, everything is designed for a human being's disposal. Some things are designed for people with disabilities but people without are also able to use such things, i.e., elevators -- common sense tells us though, that when someone with a disability needs to use an elevator that we should use an alternate way because it will make it easier for both parties. So, since most "things" are designed with the human form and mind, "things" are impossibly natural to us and it's almost unnatural to sit down and question why. How else should "things" be?
pg.106-107.q.2
I honestly don't really know if I understood fully what was going on in these chapters- though I'm sure I'm not alone- however, I am making an attempt to answer the question. Haha.
I think was Marcus was trying to say in his quote, was that because history is always changing- things are added and deleted all the time (which is why text books have new editions all the time)- and because it comes down to picking out what was important or not important enough to be written about, that the Sex Pistols' music and time in history could be looked at as just important as a major event in history. And I suppose I can agree with him- though I think it would depend on what major event in history it would be compared to. Because history is interpreted, and never is an objective truth, the music of the Sex Pistols and the events that centered around them (I don't really know much at all about them) can have crucial and important meanings weeded out of them by certain people in certain contexts.
Looked at in the history of music alone, I'm sure that the Sex Pistols can be used as a group to be learned from by musical groups of the present- therefore they serve a similar purpose as a past war would in relevance to the war we're fighting now. I guess history is what you make of it, and by learning about history you can choose to try to learn from it or to just let it go from your mind.
I don't know? ...
I think was Marcus was trying to say in his quote, was that because history is always changing- things are added and deleted all the time (which is why text books have new editions all the time)- and because it comes down to picking out what was important or not important enough to be written about, that the Sex Pistols' music and time in history could be looked at as just important as a major event in history. And I suppose I can agree with him- though I think it would depend on what major event in history it would be compared to. Because history is interpreted, and never is an objective truth, the music of the Sex Pistols and the events that centered around them (I don't really know much at all about them) can have crucial and important meanings weeded out of them by certain people in certain contexts.
Looked at in the history of music alone, I'm sure that the Sex Pistols can be used as a group to be learned from by musical groups of the present- therefore they serve a similar purpose as a past war would in relevance to the war we're fighting now. I guess history is what you make of it, and by learning about history you can choose to try to learn from it or to just let it go from your mind.
I don't know? ...
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Purpose Through Design
Columbia College staff designs everything that they do on purpose. The motto is to create change, and this is reflected in every element of the schooling environment that Columbia attempts to create. The aura is undeniable. Each building that Columbia owns it most certainly redesigns to fit the character of the image of the college, to attract more students and establish themselves as the premier art school in the world. They make the "commonsense" decision to design this school as a contemporary art school might be expected to be designed. Location is essential. It is an obvious advantage having an art school in a hustling metropolitan area surrounded by museums, working artists, and of many kinds of culture. 'The city is your campus" slogan is an obvious one, given the diversity and amenities that this city offers. Digging deeper into the buildings of Columbia, it seems that this same aura of embracing metropolitan art/life and being happy doing your art continues into the arrangement and subtle characteristics embedded into each campus building. I'll look at the building I live in, 731 S. Plymouth Ct. This building is the former Lakeside Press Building, built in 1896, located on Printer's Row along with many former printing presses. The building is of another era, a beautiful piece of architecture, and Columbia uses this to their advantage. The building goes almost totally unaltered on it's exterior, leaving even the Lakeside Press' logo engraved in the concrete in many parts of the building. This lends itself to the resounding idea of diversity at Columbia. However, as we walk in the front doors, the Columbia image takes over right away. The Vibrant colors and interesting blending of textures are there. This looks exactly what a Columbia College building would look like. Almost too Colorful, inviting in a subtle yet completely obvious way, slightly unorganized, and I would push to say unplanned/unfinished, much like some of the work that gets done here. The front security desk is the best example of this quirkiness that seems to crop up everywhere at Columbia. The security desk, which in any other building would have an executive, elegant kind of look, has been plastered over with cherry wallpaper that anywhere else would be considered tacky. But here at Columbia, it's art. On a brighter note, as you walk into a dorm room there seems to be way too much space allocated for a community living room, however if you have a lot of music equipment this is heaven, and I would think that this "commonsense," or, not so "commonsense" decision was made on purpose too to allow for students who have bands. All in all, every aspect of design has purpose, and some aspects apply both purpose, and efficient function. Here at Columbia, these principles remain true, despite the lack of refinement, and at times, organization. The college makes up for it in so many other ways and I do like it here. Columbia has to make choices differently at times because they have to remember what a large student body they have, compared to other smaller art schools that seem to be schools of different philosophies, and I think they do quite a good job of doing that.
Question 2
Eventhough the quote by Griel Marcus was written in 1989 looking back upon the late 70s, the Sex Pistols are still important today in 2007. They were revolutionary and they still are in some way and that's why I can really agree with his quote. It makes history more open ended because if you go up to a little kid and ask him to name something that happened in history, he'll most likely talk about Columbus or the Wright brothers, but he made the Sex Pistols just as an important part of history as the others. Looking back on what I know about the Sex Pistols, they really fit in to what the chapter was talking about because they were more about the behind the scenes of history and not just the big outcome. Because of where we are today from the Sex Pistols, musically or fashion-wise, we can look back on them with our new ideas and relate them. This reminds me of art history when we will look at a painting and study it using the knowledge we have today. We can look at a painting now and see the opression of women back then while when the artsist was painting, he probably didn't put much thought to it. We keep having a new way of looking at things which causes rewrites. It's funny though how the Sex Pistols only put out the one album and yet they were so influential that people are still talking about them almost thirty years later.
History
The "history of the present" has the ability to change everything. Just like the Sex Pistols are linked to a major event in history, historical events have the ability to influence what people buy and events that proceed the "history of the present". I recently watched a documentary called Black Gold, and it talks about how Ethiopians are affected by Americans love of coffee. Because of the present history happening there, I don't drink coffee from Starbucks. It is events like that are prime examples of "history of the present". This "history of the present" creates an much more complex timeline. Because history can change the history of the present, ancient history is then connected to present history. This makes it so that there are different layers of history, saying that Hitler was foolish to try to invade Russia, but that event was actually cause because Russia was more prepared to fight after the Napoleonic Wars.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Ch. 7 History p. 107 q.2
I decided to commit to the history question since I am doing the questions and such for the ideology chapter. This was kind of tough, because I've never listened to the Sex Pistols, and I've always just assumed that they're up there with The Flaming Lips and such. After looking them up, and I think I get what this question is asking. I think that by making historical claims like the Marcus one challenges people to look at the music, the popular culture of the time to possibly reflect what was going on with the common people. I keep thinking back to the Marx view that popular culture was the culture of the working class, the average people. The history chapter talked about how history normally focuses on the greats and tends to leave out what was going on with "the little people." So, by looking at the Sex Pistols music, it somehow can give an insight to the people who listened to it. There was definitely a reason for why films during the 1920's in Germany were picking up expressionalist, subjective, dark views. The people were poor after the treaty of Versailles, and there was so much unrest. Some of the greatest horror silent films came from that time and place. In that sense, another form of media seemed to represent the people of its time. I think this makes history more complex, conflicted, and open-ended because wouldn't that mean you could look at practically anything to get some sort of historical meaning out of it, like grocery lists? I don't know. Also, I think that looking at the Sex Pistols only represents its listeners--what about the people who listened to other music? This is a tough question to answer.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Notes from yesterday. . .
The FCC declares networks can't be fined for "fleeting expletives" because President Bush did it.
The FCC also curbs our ability to watch Law & Order marathons on TNT because of Fred Thompson's presidential amibitions (and thankfully so because they'd have to give equal airtime to every other candidate- can you imagine 6 hours a day of the Hillary Clinton show?)
And, last but probably most hilarious, the ever-fabulous Bitch magazine gives us a quick history of abortion in the movies. For those of you not familiar with Bitch and interested in feminist pop culture critique, get yourself a subscription; it never disappoints.
The FCC also curbs our ability to watch Law & Order marathons on TNT because of Fred Thompson's presidential amibitions (and thankfully so because they'd have to give equal airtime to every other candidate- can you imagine 6 hours a day of the Hillary Clinton show?)
And, last but probably most hilarious, the ever-fabulous Bitch magazine gives us a quick history of abortion in the movies. For those of you not familiar with Bitch and interested in feminist pop culture critique, get yourself a subscription; it never disappoints.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
In my personal opninion i believe that media is influenced by popular taste. I think this for many reasons. First and foremost, the main reason that people watch a certain show or movie often is because that is what they like to see. Nowadays everybody in the media industry is making stuff targeted for a certain audience to watch. Another reason i say this is because in media they are always talking about the ratings that the show gets. I also think this because in the media industry you have to be able to adapt to what the viewers like in order to survive because in media, without viewers, all of your hardwork basically means nothing. However I do see where others would disagree with me and say that media is not influenced by popular culture. Some people may say this because they see many shows that have been around for a very long time and are still liked by people today. An example of a show that has been around and has not changed is Fresh Prince of Bel Air. I totally understand that there really are some cases that some shows have been around awhile and have not changed, however in my opinion that is very rare. As a result i believe that everybody is entitled to their own opinion on this subject, but i really believe that media is influenced by popular culture.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Media hands us our interest?
I am a student who majors in film and video, and these questions arouse in my mind seldom. The reason being because, it takes the fun out of watching movies; so I guess you could consider me a mindless zombie in that aspect. Since were on the topic, I'll rather speak on the issue dealing with media large influential position in our common interest with entertainment. Growing up; all I did was play video games and watch movies. The reason being, because I was always in the house, and never was part of the neighborhood crowd. As a result, movies became my own personal best friend. This is just to give you, a better understanding of the desire I had and still have in me to watch films. One thing this question did for me, is forced me out of my comfort zone, by actually helping me to realize why I like certain films.
The question was; are people influenced by the production of media, to be attracted to what they are entertained to watch. I could not answer this question, with a simple yes or no answer. The reason is quite complex in my opinion, because people have a major role in society. It's what the term derived from, the media consist of people; metaphorically speaking, that have hands on the minds of society. The way they do this, is by knowing the people's common interest, and part of it is because its also part of there interest. On the other hand, there is one portion of the reading which explains the process of advertisers doing research to convince consumers in various ways to purchase products. Maybe the same method, is being used on our minds while watching films. Modanna said something that really sticks out to me, which was whenever you show things to people a certain amount of times, it becomes normal for them. When we repeatedly watch films, and it constantly gets produced, these are signs that are only results from an on going cycle.
The question was; are people influenced by the production of media, to be attracted to what they are entertained to watch. I could not answer this question, with a simple yes or no answer. The reason is quite complex in my opinion, because people have a major role in society. It's what the term derived from, the media consist of people; metaphorically speaking, that have hands on the minds of society. The way they do this, is by knowing the people's common interest, and part of it is because its also part of there interest. On the other hand, there is one portion of the reading which explains the process of advertisers doing research to convince consumers in various ways to purchase products. Maybe the same method, is being used on our minds while watching films. Modanna said something that really sticks out to me, which was whenever you show things to people a certain amount of times, it becomes normal for them. When we repeatedly watch films, and it constantly gets produced, these are signs that are only results from an on going cycle.
Culture p. 79-80, Q #3
It's funny I was just wondering about this subject myself, except not with film but with diamonds.
You know if you ride the "El" train they have those ads in the cars with the diamonds that say "make hr smile" or something to that affect. I wonder why they think diamonds make women smile, I mean who said that is what women want, did people pick it or did ads from the last centurary do it and we've been swept along with it?
Not that I don't like diamonds, even though I own none, I wa just wondering.
And it's the same thing with movies...do they "give the people what they want"? or do they decide? I'm under the impression that the reason there are so many films that are just alike is because they preform private screenings to see how well it wll be "liked" by the masses.
If that is true, they need ge new people.
Although, generally, i'm under the impression that blockbuster hollywood will do whatever makes them money. Comedies are harder to translate to an audience because how do you make a joke funny? It just is or it isn't.
But action films are extremely easy to make because they have a formula down back
---> explosion + car chase + intimedating protagonist + a few solid lines of tough-sounding oneliners+ minimal plot= $$$$$
A praticularly, good formula.
My brother and Dad love those kind of cheesy, fake, explosive, hero worship action films and I, the film lover, will never understand them.
But my dad says "it's supposed to be entertaining." essentially, a cop-out for "i don't want to think, I just wanna watch".
Prehaps that's the mentality that surrounds the blockbuter boom, the need to escape from work, kids, school, social problems, etc.
and just eat popcorn and relax.
Rather then it being just a one way thing (the producers controlling the discourse/the audience controlling the discourse) I feel it's probably a reciprical reaction. Producers make films, the audience go see, then they make more films because they think that's what they want.
You know if you ride the "El" train they have those ads in the cars with the diamonds that say "make hr smile" or something to that affect. I wonder why they think diamonds make women smile, I mean who said that is what women want, did people pick it or did ads from the last centurary do it and we've been swept along with it?
Not that I don't like diamonds, even though I own none, I wa just wondering.
And it's the same thing with movies...do they "give the people what they want"? or do they decide? I'm under the impression that the reason there are so many films that are just alike is because they preform private screenings to see how well it wll be "liked" by the masses.
If that is true, they need ge new people.
Although, generally, i'm under the impression that blockbuster hollywood will do whatever makes them money. Comedies are harder to translate to an audience because how do you make a joke funny? It just is or it isn't.
But action films are extremely easy to make because they have a formula down back
---> explosion + car chase + intimedating protagonist + a few solid lines of tough-sounding oneliners+ minimal plot= $$$$$
A praticularly, good formula.
My brother and Dad love those kind of cheesy, fake, explosive, hero worship action films and I, the film lover, will never understand them.
But my dad says "it's supposed to be entertaining." essentially, a cop-out for "i don't want to think, I just wanna watch".
Prehaps that's the mentality that surrounds the blockbuter boom, the need to escape from work, kids, school, social problems, etc.
and just eat popcorn and relax.
Rather then it being just a one way thing (the producers controlling the discourse/the audience controlling the discourse) I feel it's probably a reciprical reaction. Producers make films, the audience go see, then they make more films because they think that's what they want.
I guess I'd have to say that in terms of media reftecting popular tastes vs. media producing them I think it goes both ways. I feel that media is a capitolists take on popular taste. I think it's kind of cycle where we have or popular tastes for what is popular in the media but then something that was created by us becomes popular and corporations see the money making capabilities of whatever it is so they buy it, repackage it, and give it to us so that they can benefit until a new popular taste emerges. I also believe that the peoples popular tastes are influenced by the medias representation of what is already popular. I think some of deals with the population of people whose personalities are very passive. They laugh at what everyone else laughs at and are excited by what everyone else get excited over. These people are conformers and even though this might be stretching a bit I do personally feel that they are an important instrument in controling what is popular.
p. 79-80, #2
The media does not need to be regulated, but, there has to be some reform in the economical system to end corporate influence. Instead of getting real news, we get what sells, what'll keep the viewer around through the commercial so they can get a million images of stuff they don't need drilled into their heads.
Corporate influence is a threat to democracy. The big names with the big money have total control and an unfair advantage. Their power is great enough to manipulate the majority of a society.
Market competition doesn't ensure a wide range of views, if does the opposite. First of all, a few big coroprations are in control of the market. Those on a smaller scale don't stand a chance. Second, for the big corporations to maintain their profit, they all end up finding one element that works are running with it. There is no variation at all. The news on CNN is exactly the same as the news on MSNBC and Fox. The discussion around the issues may vary slightly (but nothing out of the obvious and generally accepted) but the issues and the stories are always the same.
Corporate influence is a threat to democracy. The big names with the big money have total control and an unfair advantage. Their power is great enough to manipulate the majority of a society.
Market competition doesn't ensure a wide range of views, if does the opposite. First of all, a few big coroprations are in control of the market. Those on a smaller scale don't stand a chance. Second, for the big corporations to maintain their profit, they all end up finding one element that works are running with it. There is no variation at all. The news on CNN is exactly the same as the news on MSNBC and Fox. The discussion around the issues may vary slightly (but nothing out of the obvious and generally accepted) but the issues and the stories are always the same.
p.79-80, q. 3
I think the media reflects popular tastes. They give the majority of people what they want. When a movie comes out, the media goes all out to promote it; especially when it’s a blockbuster. It does not matter if it’s a bad movie, only that it will make a lot of money. Take Spider-Man 3, it was a horrible movie, but it made more money than its predecessors. Spider-Man 3 was a soap opera that consisted of a love triangle between Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson and Harry Osborne. The media can be blamed for making millions of people pay to see it. Spider-Man 3 was very popular with people especially children who don’t know the series. Merchandise from the movie was not flying off store shelves, so my guess is people were not in it for the toys, t-shirts, posters, games, etc. The first two movies were excellent because it appealed to everyone including diehard comic fans. The third movie failed because it had too many villains; it is reminiscent of “Batman and Robin”. The movie got its publicity and its fame from the media; it did not last for too long. The media praises a movie until the next “big one” comes out. I had high hopes for this movie until I saw the trailer. Spider-Man 3 had some action sequences, but most of the movie consisted of drama. People want action in movies because they have enough drama in their lives. People need to get away from their daily life and escape to another reality. Most people like action movies because it involves little dialogue. This means that people will understand what’s going on even if they don’t speak English. Comedy movies are more popular because laughter is a universal language. Even if you don’t understand English, most of comedy is slapstick. When someone gets kicked in the groin, everyone can understand this as funny. Laughter is also contagious, so if people are laughing you will too. The media is not a good tool for movie reviews. Movie critics are the people who praise the good movies and blast the bad ones. The difference is the media that includes Access Hollywood, Extra, E.T. etc. are more powerful than the movie critics who know what they’re talking about.
Answer Goes Both Ways
Are people getting "what they want" or is their taste being produced? I was talking to my sister about this over breakfast this morning and couldn't really decide on either answer. I guess that I came to the conclusion that it's a little bit of both. People are getting what they want but the media definitely gives a high amount of push to gear people in certain directions. Besides, if the media didn't have a great amount of influence on what people like, want, "need"... then, what would be the point of advertisement, television, magazines, commercials, etc?
People do not necessarily WANT to see someone die in a horror movie or high action movie, what they want is to see and feel the thrill, that they normally can not feel in real life. They want to see the good guy win..the bad guy die, go to jail or pay for his faults. Then, the media's job is to hype it up, drag and produce more and more so they can get their paycheck too.
I understand how high action movies seem to be more easily translated compared to a comedy. But, I don't find this to bring more action movies than comedy...then again, I am no movie buff. People like variety. (Most) People want everything. I do not think that the media necessarily tells people what they want, but I do believe that it does gear you in a direction and make things pop out more at you.
People do not necessarily WANT to see someone die in a horror movie or high action movie, what they want is to see and feel the thrill, that they normally can not feel in real life. They want to see the good guy win..the bad guy die, go to jail or pay for his faults. Then, the media's job is to hype it up, drag and produce more and more so they can get their paycheck too.
I understand how high action movies seem to be more easily translated compared to a comedy. But, I don't find this to bring more action movies than comedy...then again, I am no movie buff. People like variety. (Most) People want everything. I do not think that the media necessarily tells people what they want, but I do believe that it does gear you in a direction and make things pop out more at you.
media/democracy
I think that media plays an important role in democracy. The citizens of our nation are entitled to every peice of information we can access which isnt always available and ready-made for us. The mass media as well as coporate influnce does have the power to sway things from one side to the other due to nature of there power. i see this as very powerful and strong force however i see it just as scary. The market aslo does not in my opinion offer a wide rage of veiws because it is really just the biggest running everything. I do think that the usage should be limited however I cant imagine how we limit it. These conglomerates are not something you can "grant" a certain amount of usage to. I think there say in things and the availability of knowledge to the masses is a powerful and helpful tool however it should be limited. The goverment should be able to limit there usage but in this situation, the people should be able to.
The Role of The Media
2. The role of mass media in our democracy as of today consists of a wide of variety of "low culture entertainment," combined with what I would call a halfway decent analysis of local and international events. I would like to see more in-depth analysis and more questions being asked about our foreign policy and why we have chosen the actions that we have over seas, especially in a post September 11th world. In a time of war, the press holds even more responsibility than it otherwise would. What has happened in a time of war, is that the press will conceal certain information that is not in the interest of protecting our "national security," and all of the baggage that comes with that. But now, as we live in a time of constant global war, I am not sure how the media is responding. They must be responding someway. Is it the media's job to support an administration in a time of war? Can our nations foes discover through our media, information pertaining to our national security they would otherwise have to use spies and agents to steal? The landscape on which we lives seems so much bigger to me these days. Foreign events don't seem far away anymore, as we are now fully engaged in operations overseas, with public awareness of this. I would argue that the public needs the fullest picture possible of events, within the narrowest limits of national security.
In thinking about corporate influence in the media, one need look no farther than to the few giants who control practically everything that you watch. Most people that regularly watch TV, like watching TV. These giants are obviously doing something right. However we have to think critically about the motives and agendas that Viacom, GE, etc, just might have. Companies with massive amounts of influence and money, who are welcomed home into people's living rooms everyday are companies operating under the same business principles as any other business. They would like to see a kind of infinite growth and sustainability, taking the necessary measures to ensure that. Does this mean, just giving the public what it wants? I am not sure about that. I would hope that as it relates to news, we are being painted the fullest possible picture that can be allowed. "Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion." This JFK quote makes a great point that I wanted to finish with, that our press/mass media, is the only business protected under the Constitution. We as a people should always remember that, and be the change that we wish to see in the world.
In thinking about corporate influence in the media, one need look no farther than to the few giants who control practically everything that you watch. Most people that regularly watch TV, like watching TV. These giants are obviously doing something right. However we have to think critically about the motives and agendas that Viacom, GE, etc, just might have. Companies with massive amounts of influence and money, who are welcomed home into people's living rooms everyday are companies operating under the same business principles as any other business. They would like to see a kind of infinite growth and sustainability, taking the necessary measures to ensure that. Does this mean, just giving the public what it wants? I am not sure about that. I would hope that as it relates to news, we are being painted the fullest possible picture that can be allowed. "Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion." This JFK quote makes a great point that I wanted to finish with, that our press/mass media, is the only business protected under the Constitution. We as a people should always remember that, and be the change that we wish to see in the world.
pg. 70-80.q.3
so... are we just getting what we want, or are our wants being produced? it's hard to say and there probably is not a correct answer. saying that it's both is probably the closest you can get to really coming to an answer.
i would say that some of it IS what we want- because somewhere someone thought of creating it, or publishing it, or airing it, or selling it- most likely because it was something that they wanted to see happen, and they figured they probably weren't alone in that opinion. for instance, i don't think i could say that the media has produced society's 'want' to laugh. everybody likes to laugh- so why not produce a comedy? but then again there are shows like Real World and it makes me think- is this show really necessary? and i say that even as a Real World fan- well, at least until the couple most recent seasons. I do enjoy watching 7 strangers get drunk, hook up, cat-fight, fist fight, and pour out their emotions and flaunt their personal issues- but why? I have no frickin' clue- and that's where i start giving the media the hairy eyeball. so to be general I'll say that America loves reality t.v., drama, violence, comedy, blah, blah, blah... but maybe we only enjoy these things and other aspects of the media culture because (to throw in an analogy) the fire keeps getting fed. and even though we do love to laugh, what makes the things we laugh at funny? why do we even think they're funny in the first place? it's almost like the media gives us what we want, and in between those wants they weave in things that we'll probably grown to want, then those wants will be fed whil again we start to form new wants and it just keeps snowballing. and i don't think that it is necessarily bad or good to have it either way (whether we're given what we want or that our wants or produced).
the media is a big part of our lives, and it's not going away anytime soon. i'm not saying that we should just all become media-fed robots and just sit back and take it in bc there's nothing we can really do- however I do believe that we do have an amount of control over our minds, and wants, and actions, and all that jazz- and if people really did have a problem with the media then we should all turn off our televisions, stop reading... everything, and cancel our accounts with our internet service providers (but then blogging for this class might be difficult).
i would say that some of it IS what we want- because somewhere someone thought of creating it, or publishing it, or airing it, or selling it- most likely because it was something that they wanted to see happen, and they figured they probably weren't alone in that opinion. for instance, i don't think i could say that the media has produced society's 'want' to laugh. everybody likes to laugh- so why not produce a comedy? but then again there are shows like Real World and it makes me think- is this show really necessary? and i say that even as a Real World fan- well, at least until the couple most recent seasons. I do enjoy watching 7 strangers get drunk, hook up, cat-fight, fist fight, and pour out their emotions and flaunt their personal issues- but why? I have no frickin' clue- and that's where i start giving the media the hairy eyeball. so to be general I'll say that America loves reality t.v., drama, violence, comedy, blah, blah, blah... but maybe we only enjoy these things and other aspects of the media culture because (to throw in an analogy) the fire keeps getting fed. and even though we do love to laugh, what makes the things we laugh at funny? why do we even think they're funny in the first place? it's almost like the media gives us what we want, and in between those wants they weave in things that we'll probably grown to want, then those wants will be fed whil again we start to form new wants and it just keeps snowballing. and i don't think that it is necessarily bad or good to have it either way (whether we're given what we want or that our wants or produced).
the media is a big part of our lives, and it's not going away anytime soon. i'm not saying that we should just all become media-fed robots and just sit back and take it in bc there's nothing we can really do- however I do believe that we do have an amount of control over our minds, and wants, and actions, and all that jazz- and if people really did have a problem with the media then we should all turn off our televisions, stop reading... everything, and cancel our accounts with our internet service providers (but then blogging for this class might be difficult).
Sunday, October 7, 2007
BLOG # 6
The role of mass media in a democracy is to inform and entertain, while keeping the audience (our society) scared and controlled. While mass media may provide us with a large portion of information about the world around us, during the commercial break, mass media also tells us that if you don’t use the new Schick Quattro Titanium Razor you’ll never get the hot-girl-in-a-towel. It is interesting that mass media can provide us with important information, all while playing up our insecurities, keeping us scared and controlled. Mass media keeps society in need of otherwise unnecessary things.
That is not the kind of information that citizens need access to. Citizens should have access to unbiased news reports on everything that is happening in our country, in our hometowns, in our government, and in the world around us. Instead we see reports on events that someone (typically middle-aged white men) has specially selected for the public to see.
In this day and age, I think that corporate influence is much less of a threat to democracy than it has been in the past. I believe that that is due to the fact that my generation is much more interested in uniqueness and individuality than any other generation, making us less vulnerable to corporate influence. I would also agree that market competition helps to ensure a wider range of views.
It is difficult to come up with an answer for who should regulate media’s usage, if not corporations and government. It would be interesting to see the effects of completely unregulated media on a given society. However, I think we’re all aware that having absolutely no rules will rarely turn out well.
That is not the kind of information that citizens need access to. Citizens should have access to unbiased news reports on everything that is happening in our country, in our hometowns, in our government, and in the world around us. Instead we see reports on events that someone (typically middle-aged white men) has specially selected for the public to see.
In this day and age, I think that corporate influence is much less of a threat to democracy than it has been in the past. I believe that that is due to the fact that my generation is much more interested in uniqueness and individuality than any other generation, making us less vulnerable to corporate influence. I would also agree that market competition helps to ensure a wider range of views.
It is difficult to come up with an answer for who should regulate media’s usage, if not corporations and government. It would be interesting to see the effects of completely unregulated media on a given society. However, I think we’re all aware that having absolutely no rules will rarely turn out well.
Blog 6, TT p. 79, #2
In a democracy, media should, ideally, be a way in which citizens receive information, but not the only way. Watching debates on TV, reading analysts in the newspaper or looking at election polls in a weekly magazine should all be unbiased ways in which consumers learn about their government, but citizens should also go listen to politicians speak and volunteer in campaign offices to get a look at what is really happening. Internet blogs are a good way to find out what others feel about certain issues and connect with fellow citizens.
Corporate America taking over the media is a threat to unbiased information. Competition does not encourage variety, but stifles it. Corporations will homogenize information and the way it is portrayed until it is impossible to differentiate one channel from the next. Media conglomerates will be different only enough to make a viewer choose the NBC nightly news over that of CBS, but is there really a difference, or just a shallow preference with no meaning? If corporations can do swimmingly by all emitting identical images, yet tweaking the layout so it is so obviously "CNN-ish", they will do just that and forget about informing the public with many different views and opinions, and making sure to include all the information. If the CEO of General Electric is a huge Zach Braff fan, then you can bet that Gene Schallot will give a rave review for "The Ex". And how democratic is that?
Corporate America taking over the media is a threat to unbiased information. Competition does not encourage variety, but stifles it. Corporations will homogenize information and the way it is portrayed until it is impossible to differentiate one channel from the next. Media conglomerates will be different only enough to make a viewer choose the NBC nightly news over that of CBS, but is there really a difference, or just a shallow preference with no meaning? If corporations can do swimmingly by all emitting identical images, yet tweaking the layout so it is so obviously "CNN-ish", they will do just that and forget about informing the public with many different views and opinions, and making sure to include all the information. If the CEO of General Electric is a huge Zach Braff fan, then you can bet that Gene Schallot will give a rave review for "The Ex". And how democratic is that?
Culture #2
Mass media has a very important role in democracy. If the media was to say that a president was doing something very wrong, the public would believe the media as fact and the presidents approval rating would certainly drop. The media is almost always view as the truth. The public trust the media to be unbiased not to support either the democratic or republic party. For the most part they usually tend to tell the truth.
Citizens need access to every bit of information, but for the majority of the public, there should be a summary of the major points of politics, the good and the bad. Corporate influence is a very big threat to democracy. If the media wanted to they could support either the democratic or republican party, and they would succeed at influencing the vote. It is true that market competition will influence whether or not the media will pursue biased media, but it is possible for media to do so.
It is impossible for anyone to truly regulate the media, the government can't absolutely control the media, because they are run by a biased source. I don't know who could reliably control what the media showed and censored. All of it is opinions and it is impossible to say what is truly the best way to regulate the media.
The Media is the Message
Does the Media simply reflect popular tastes, "giving people what they want", or are peoples taste for mindless entertainment produced by the makers of our t.v., movie, and music industries? When trying to unearth such a vast array of influences in the media today we need to look at the content of what is being spoon fed to the public. First and foremost the media only puts out what they know the public will devour and consume. Which makes me wonder, would major news networks report on issues that really matter such as poverty, education, and global warming, if we all demanded it? Would theatres take a chance at box office sales playing only films like an, “Inconvenient Truth”, an issue that will affect everyone much more than The Bourne Ultimatum?
The issue of the media being the transmitter of information reminds me of the book “The Medium is the Massage”, by Marshall McLuhan. In this work he cites the inventions of the typewriter, television, and computer as instruments that have all altered our natural way of thought. McLuhan’s book looks at the concealed effects of these mediums as an intoxicating hypnosis, which is something that rings true especially in today’s media. For instance during the countries tragedy of 9/11 we were shown a Terror Alert Monitor in an array of different colors meant to convey what the level of terror was in the country on a particular date. In some way shape or form this rainbow of terror was controlling the country even if we unconsciously put it in the back of our heads for the day.
Our “news networks” seem to be anything but these days which makes me wonder why they aren’t required to put up warning bulletins that say,” proceed with caution, anything and 90% of everything youre about to hear is completely bogus”. This summer CNN ran a short segment about a racially fueled incident now being called “The Jena Six”. The story, stemming from three nooses being hung in the courtyard of the school ultimately resulted in six African Americans students being charged with aggravated assault even though many white students had also added fuel to the flame. The story was aired with little coverage and then boom, Paris Hilton was let out of jail and all the news networks could talk about was the heir head. Tell me, when we live in a country where we are spoon fed “breaking news” about someone who is going to do very little in contributing to the world, what does this say about us? Obviously they know that a story like Ms. Hilton’s will get them high ratings but when all they care about is ratings shouldn’t we then just turn the damn thing off? Actually realizing that our media is controlled by networks out for ratings and not substantial coverage of important earth changing events why do we still allow the public to consume it day after day.
Kaiti g.
The issue of the media being the transmitter of information reminds me of the book “The Medium is the Massage”, by Marshall McLuhan. In this work he cites the inventions of the typewriter, television, and computer as instruments that have all altered our natural way of thought. McLuhan’s book looks at the concealed effects of these mediums as an intoxicating hypnosis, which is something that rings true especially in today’s media. For instance during the countries tragedy of 9/11 we were shown a Terror Alert Monitor in an array of different colors meant to convey what the level of terror was in the country on a particular date. In some way shape or form this rainbow of terror was controlling the country even if we unconsciously put it in the back of our heads for the day.
Our “news networks” seem to be anything but these days which makes me wonder why they aren’t required to put up warning bulletins that say,” proceed with caution, anything and 90% of everything youre about to hear is completely bogus”. This summer CNN ran a short segment about a racially fueled incident now being called “The Jena Six”. The story, stemming from three nooses being hung in the courtyard of the school ultimately resulted in six African Americans students being charged with aggravated assault even though many white students had also added fuel to the flame. The story was aired with little coverage and then boom, Paris Hilton was let out of jail and all the news networks could talk about was the heir head. Tell me, when we live in a country where we are spoon fed “breaking news” about someone who is going to do very little in contributing to the world, what does this say about us? Obviously they know that a story like Ms. Hilton’s will get them high ratings but when all they care about is ratings shouldn’t we then just turn the damn thing off? Actually realizing that our media is controlled by networks out for ratings and not substantial coverage of important earth changing events why do we still allow the public to consume it day after day.
Kaiti g.
Blog #6 p. 79 Q3
I don't believe that the media is simly or strictly one or the other- I think that some of it IS what the people want, and some of the people's wants are produced. I think that in the movies and the tv and the news, it is what we want- we want to be entertained and informed. If it were the other way around, there would only be one genre of movies for example. We want violence and sex. I WANTED that hot bathtub scene in The Fountain. If we don't want it, we turn the channel, put in a different movie or pick up a different book. Commercials and ads and billboards are where industry is telling us what we want- they're telling us that we'll be cool if we smoke these cigarettes, they're telling us that we'll be happier with Comcast digital voice. This chapter was a lot of information to take in, as was that packet. But, at the end of it, I get the picture. Corporate and Political types pick and choose what we take in, but that doesn't mean it controls us- in the end, while we are still influenced by all of it, we still make our own decision about it. I think our ability to read media changes just as much as our connotations about the meanings of words do. If someone from 100 years ago were to watch TV today, she would probably take it in MUCH differently than I would.
PS. The whole controlled news thing is appalling.
PS. The whole controlled news thing is appalling.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Alice's blog
Ultimately, I think that the role of mass media is to entertain and inform. Like the Simpsons vs. the newspaper. Anyone can get access to either and they should be able to get access to whatever else they want. People should be able to know what they want to know. But something that condradicts that is area 51. My dad and I have gone down to Roswell, New Mexico a couple times and we both belong to the UFO Museum members. We're huge alien nerds. Though I 100% believe in aliens and the crash that happened in 1947, I wish so bad that I knew the truth. I wish there was some way to find out but there is nothing I can do to get that information. But the truth is out there, so to say.
I dont think corporate influence is necessarily a threat to democracy, but it has the potential to be. If the owner of Coke decided to give Hilary Clinton a $2 million campaign contribution, they are in turn buying influence. I don't think it is a threat but it could be if it got out of control.
No one should regulate media's usage. I do believe however that they need to fall in the guidelines of public decency, but they should be able to do what they want. I dont think either corporations or the government should regulate the media. Not to sound like one of those kids that is always talking about politics and how corupt the world is, but I dont trust either of them. It's just like the Pink Floyd song where David Gilmour asks "Mother, should I trust the government?" No. The media, as a whole, should be unregulated. It should be a chaotic free-for-all and I choose what and what not to take in.
I dont think corporate influence is necessarily a threat to democracy, but it has the potential to be. If the owner of Coke decided to give Hilary Clinton a $2 million campaign contribution, they are in turn buying influence. I don't think it is a threat but it could be if it got out of control.
No one should regulate media's usage. I do believe however that they need to fall in the guidelines of public decency, but they should be able to do what they want. I dont think either corporations or the government should regulate the media. Not to sound like one of those kids that is always talking about politics and how corupt the world is, but I dont trust either of them. It's just like the Pink Floyd song where David Gilmour asks "Mother, should I trust the government?" No. The media, as a whole, should be unregulated. It should be a chaotic free-for-all and I choose what and what not to take in.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Blog #6 - Media Culture
Question #2
The role of the media is supposed to entertain and inform the people. Notice how I put entertain first and inform second and also notice how I used the word supposed to. This is the same role it takes in democracy, an entertaining look into things we think we know about, yet have very little idea. it "informs" you about the upcoming decisions that our country or world may be going into, but it never really dives into the "Whys" or the "Hows". It tells you about the right now, and there is very little people cna do about what is going on right as it airs. This is the very little info they give us, and to be honest I think it is for the best. Everyone is not ready, nor should they be subject to all the workings or "whys" and "hows" of things. If they did they may go crazy.
Anytime no single entity has its hand in something it is a bad thing I think, so cooperate influence is no exception. With just these few huge hands in our media outlets and government will only assure the shell that is being placed over this country. The shell that blocks any radical and unconventional ideas from takeing shape so it is assured their power and rank stays unfazed. Things will only become skewed to what they want and seen in the eyes on their face.
The thing about this problem though, is that there is no answer. These cooperations have their hands in so deep if we were to pull them out blood would get everywhere. If anyone were to begin to regulate it rather than the government then we might begin to see the new regulators turn into what we alreayd have. Easiest solution, look at the even, not the news story, and see what your first impression is and act upon that.
The role of the media is supposed to entertain and inform the people. Notice how I put entertain first and inform second and also notice how I used the word supposed to. This is the same role it takes in democracy, an entertaining look into things we think we know about, yet have very little idea. it "informs" you about the upcoming decisions that our country or world may be going into, but it never really dives into the "Whys" or the "Hows". It tells you about the right now, and there is very little people cna do about what is going on right as it airs. This is the very little info they give us, and to be honest I think it is for the best. Everyone is not ready, nor should they be subject to all the workings or "whys" and "hows" of things. If they did they may go crazy.
Anytime no single entity has its hand in something it is a bad thing I think, so cooperate influence is no exception. With just these few huge hands in our media outlets and government will only assure the shell that is being placed over this country. The shell that blocks any radical and unconventional ideas from takeing shape so it is assured their power and rank stays unfazed. Things will only become skewed to what they want and seen in the eyes on their face.
The thing about this problem though, is that there is no answer. These cooperations have their hands in so deep if we were to pull them out blood would get everywhere. If anyone were to begin to regulate it rather than the government then we might begin to see the new regulators turn into what we alreayd have. Easiest solution, look at the even, not the news story, and see what your first impression is and act upon that.
A facebook for the ELITE?
i thought someone might find this interestng
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/fashion/06smallworld.html?_r=1&ex=1189828800&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/fashion/06smallworld.html?_r=1&ex=1189828800&oref=slogin
Monday, October 1, 2007
Popular culture always ruins everything!@!@!
In the broad spectrum of what our society deems as popular culture; movies, music, fashion, and television are hurled at us by the waves of mass media. These trends which run anywhere from the latest pop band belting out their pseudo love song, to “fashionistas” imitating what actresses have already copied off of a famous designer, to game shows and reality shows which all center around the get rich quick/ find your soul mate in a span of three months all center around a certain mentality that cannot actually exist in reality. These trends had to of started off somewhere, being constructs by some higher corporate official, simply looking to make a buck. Hundreds of thousands of people do not catch on to a trend without it being catapulted into the limelight by some force of popular culture. So what happens when that song that you “discovered” or more or less came upon on You-tube turns into the hottest jam of the summer, listened to by millions of people from all walks of life?
The meaning of the artist for a particular work of art is if often questioned but not held up as the only insinuation of their work, we are in turn often left to decipher what it means to us from our own experiences and perceptions of the world. Now comes the question at hand when a work of art floods the mass media and permeates every corner of popular culture. I can recall earlier this summer when the song by Tay Zonday, titled, “Chocolate Rain”, hit Youtube. When I first viewed it in mid June over a million people had already clicked on to see this unknown college student belting out his own form of race related commentary. At first I thought this guy was a genius in some respects. He had taken a silly name like chocolate rain and constructed an entire song around the phrase, using it to question politicians to age-old stereotypes that society has held surrounding African Americans. After seeing his first ever musical performance on a late night talk show I thought the seriousness of Chocolate Rain may actually start making people my age question all the stereotypical race related issues Mr. Zonday hones in on in his song.
Over the course of the summer this song seemed to flourish, receiving 8 million hits on Youtube and counting, and has provoked tons of ridiculous parodies in its wake. I’m saddened however that the thought provoking lyrics of Tay’s Chocolate Rain have caused attention but very little reaction or discussion to race relations. Just the other week walking to the grocery store a guy stood outside making a spectacle of himself belting out Chocolate Rain. Our media crazed world had yet again ran with the hottest new fad of the summer, and instead of pondering its implications, our society could only be found mocking it and reveling in its humorous undertones. So does art lose its value once the masses catch on and grab a hold of it? When so many people can decipher and decide their own personal little meaning for a song or a new catch-phrase, the artists true intentions will forever become muttled by the masses.
kaiti g.
The meaning of the artist for a particular work of art is if often questioned but not held up as the only insinuation of their work, we are in turn often left to decipher what it means to us from our own experiences and perceptions of the world. Now comes the question at hand when a work of art floods the mass media and permeates every corner of popular culture. I can recall earlier this summer when the song by Tay Zonday, titled, “Chocolate Rain”, hit Youtube. When I first viewed it in mid June over a million people had already clicked on to see this unknown college student belting out his own form of race related commentary. At first I thought this guy was a genius in some respects. He had taken a silly name like chocolate rain and constructed an entire song around the phrase, using it to question politicians to age-old stereotypes that society has held surrounding African Americans. After seeing his first ever musical performance on a late night talk show I thought the seriousness of Chocolate Rain may actually start making people my age question all the stereotypical race related issues Mr. Zonday hones in on in his song.
Over the course of the summer this song seemed to flourish, receiving 8 million hits on Youtube and counting, and has provoked tons of ridiculous parodies in its wake. I’m saddened however that the thought provoking lyrics of Tay’s Chocolate Rain have caused attention but very little reaction or discussion to race relations. Just the other week walking to the grocery store a guy stood outside making a spectacle of himself belting out Chocolate Rain. Our media crazed world had yet again ran with the hottest new fad of the summer, and instead of pondering its implications, our society could only be found mocking it and reveling in its humorous undertones. So does art lose its value once the masses catch on and grab a hold of it? When so many people can decipher and decide their own personal little meaning for a song or a new catch-phrase, the artists true intentions will forever become muttled by the masses.
kaiti g.
I am paying for internet at Mcdonalds because I thought Starbucks had free internet. ughhhhhhhh.
If something becomes popular, it does not necessarily mean that it has diminished in value or meaning. But, if something is popular, it does not always mean that it has meaning or value either. Meaning and value certainly depends on every persons opinion of whatever it is that is popular. Of course, like we talked about in class, the author/artist/inventor gives meaning to whatever but their own meaning does not always stay true to that subject of others ideas about it. Often people throw away and give their own meaning and value to whatever it is. This is how people make things relate to them and connect.
Popularity happens because something is appealing to vast amounts of people. The meaning may or may not have something to do with this. A good example is reality tv shows. There are so many of them out there, but do they really have value or meaning? If someone relates to it, they will give it meaning. Watching The Biggest Loser because it inspires them to get on track and get into shape gives meaning to the show. If someone doesn't relate to it but likes to waste time in front of a tv watching tv show after tv show, it could just be because its their way of relaxing and having a good time. Do they watch The Biggest Loser because it is encouraging them to exercise, eat healthy and change their life around or just for the fact that they want to see who gets booted off next? The meaning of the show might not have anything to do with why it's so popular to them--it's just something for them and thousands of other people to do and watch. It's advertised. It's eye candy. It's popular.
I find when someone says that something has "sold out" they just do not like the idea that tons of other people have latched on to whatever it is. They want it to stay small, for themselves, so it and they can continue to be unique. Usually when someone complains about something selling out, they do it with a tone in their voice implying that it's a bad thing. It does not mean that something has lost meaning, it just means that whatever it is (might have been offered more money and advertised more) attracting much larger amounts of people. Of course, a band (most), for instance, would sign if a major record label offered them. It means more money, bigger future, and more publicity. Who wouldn't sign a record label if it meant you got an extra 5, 10, 30 g each year added to your salary? This is America. Money matters. Popularity matters.... (to most).
Popularity happens because something is appealing to vast amounts of people. The meaning may or may not have something to do with this. A good example is reality tv shows. There are so many of them out there, but do they really have value or meaning? If someone relates to it, they will give it meaning. Watching The Biggest Loser because it inspires them to get on track and get into shape gives meaning to the show. If someone doesn't relate to it but likes to waste time in front of a tv watching tv show after tv show, it could just be because its their way of relaxing and having a good time. Do they watch The Biggest Loser because it is encouraging them to exercise, eat healthy and change their life around or just for the fact that they want to see who gets booted off next? The meaning of the show might not have anything to do with why it's so popular to them--it's just something for them and thousands of other people to do and watch. It's advertised. It's eye candy. It's popular.
I find when someone says that something has "sold out" they just do not like the idea that tons of other people have latched on to whatever it is. They want it to stay small, for themselves, so it and they can continue to be unique. Usually when someone complains about something selling out, they do it with a tone in their voice implying that it's a bad thing. It does not mean that something has lost meaning, it just means that whatever it is (might have been offered more money and advertised more) attracting much larger amounts of people. Of course, a band (most), for instance, would sign if a major record label offered them. It means more money, bigger future, and more publicity. Who wouldn't sign a record label if it meant you got an extra 5, 10, 30 g each year added to your salary? This is America. Money matters. Popularity matters.... (to most).
Its hard for me to say that popularity doesnt change the value or creativity of whats becoming popular whether it be a song or movie or artist, etc. I think that something becoming popular is completly contextual and has really nothing to do with the artist/creator however there is a large backlash. The cultures and offspring that come with the glamourization and popularity of a lot things in the media do tend to get watered down the bigger and more common they become. i think that a lot of popular or "top 40" music (or whatever its called) suffers this the most as do large box office movies catered to these patrons. In the digital age the mass media is in nowadays has an automatic audience before anything is to come out. bands being signed/created before they have done anything, movie stars bigger than life before there first movie comes out, clothes, styles/ fashion are all examples of this nonsense.
However, i do not feel that because something gets popular it automaticly gets downsized to something less creative. i keep thinking of the "a million people cant be wrong" idea with this but i dont agree entirely. if you can make a million people listen to your song and buy it its hard to argue with. however, so much is created now specifically for that which i feel is totally wrong. these things are which in my opinion, give the mass media and popular cultures a bad name because you are hyping something that was made to appeal to 10000000 people and thats it. an artist or musician or whatever who creates something they believe in and and it becomes popularized has done something great, regardless if i like it or not. i feel that the contextual nature of popularity in these forms has to be read by the individual and enterprted and sepreated from whether its art or just popularized for the sake money or anything else that corrupts the industries this way.
However, i do not feel that because something gets popular it automaticly gets downsized to something less creative. i keep thinking of the "a million people cant be wrong" idea with this but i dont agree entirely. if you can make a million people listen to your song and buy it its hard to argue with. however, so much is created now specifically for that which i feel is totally wrong. these things are which in my opinion, give the mass media and popular cultures a bad name because you are hyping something that was made to appeal to 10000000 people and thats it. an artist or musician or whatever who creates something they believe in and and it becomes popularized has done something great, regardless if i like it or not. i feel that the contextual nature of popularity in these forms has to be read by the individual and enterprted and sepreated from whether its art or just popularized for the sake money or anything else that corrupts the industries this way.
Blog #5 - Culture
Do thigns that become popular in this world loose or deminish in vaule? I think truely original and beautiful things can never really deminish in their cultural significance. Though it is the millions of off shoots or carbon copies of said thing that cheapens that particular object. That does not nessarly make those things bad, it just makes them less unique. In a way I suppose that may skew the perception of the original object, but that comes down to what a person thinks rather than truth, and some people might say that imitation is the best form of flattery.
The artist is never really in control of his/her art. They can try and envoke a certain message in their work that they want to get across, but in the end it comes down to what that individual at that time ges out of that, and there is no way to control that. In other cases, once something does become popular and everyone likes it, then the message it may hav ebeen directing to is now being told to not just that specific group, but everyone which people may see as diminishing the message.
All in all, when something becomes popular I hate when people say it is a bad thing, and that things become lame or loose what it was all about. How did it become popular in the firs tplace then? What is wrong for liking a song/movie/or anything pop culture related and connecting with that along with a someone else you might not expect. The people dicide what pop culture is, nd though once we all decide on the next big thing and then the market becomes flooded with it, for a moment we were all moved by something original and beautiful.
The artist is never really in control of his/her art. They can try and envoke a certain message in their work that they want to get across, but in the end it comes down to what that individual at that time ges out of that, and there is no way to control that. In other cases, once something does become popular and everyone likes it, then the message it may hav ebeen directing to is now being told to not just that specific group, but everyone which people may see as diminishing the message.
All in all, when something becomes popular I hate when people say it is a bad thing, and that things become lame or loose what it was all about. How did it become popular in the firs tplace then? What is wrong for liking a song/movie/or anything pop culture related and connecting with that along with a someone else you might not expect. The people dicide what pop culture is, nd though once we all decide on the next big thing and then the market becomes flooded with it, for a moment we were all moved by something original and beautiful.
p.69-70
Popularity is not an indicator of diminished value, though one could be fooled by some of today's subcultures. Bands are shunned by their original fan base as soon as soon as they start playing venues larger than a box. This doesn't make the band or it's music any less meaningful or of "less value", it just exploits the shallowness of that original fan base. But it is the image and sound those bands and that original fan base that is sucked up by huge money hoarding companies, and vomited up into the latest trend for the nation's teenyboppers to latch onto, and for their parents (the money source) to grudgingly accept (they've been there too but don't want to admit it).
People assume that the bands getting paid more are being controlled by The Man; churning out the artistic equivalent to spam to make easy money. This is proof in the lack of faith we have in our fellow man. It is assumed that people have no principles or values and I don't think this is the case. Sure, when I was in middle school I played the "sell out" name game but I've since gotten over that and just tried to enjoy things for what they are. If it's good it's good, if it's not, then, it's not. I don't care where it comes from or who looks like what or makes what money. But for others, these things are of extreme importance and so the cycle goes on. The underground starts a trend, it becomes more popular, it is surfaced by the mainstream, the underground ditches it and starts a new trend, and so on.
People assume that the bands getting paid more are being controlled by The Man; churning out the artistic equivalent to spam to make easy money. This is proof in the lack of faith we have in our fellow man. It is assumed that people have no principles or values and I don't think this is the case. Sure, when I was in middle school I played the "sell out" name game but I've since gotten over that and just tried to enjoy things for what they are. If it's good it's good, if it's not, then, it's not. I don't care where it comes from or who looks like what or makes what money. But for others, these things are of extreme importance and so the cycle goes on. The underground starts a trend, it becomes more popular, it is surfaced by the mainstream, the underground ditches it and starts a new trend, and so on.
Blog #5
If something becomes "popular" that does not mean that it has diminished in meaning or value. I would tend to argue the opposite, in fact. If a work becomes "popular" that means that it’s meaning has been spread to the masses, but just because it’s meaning has become more accessible, does not mean it’s true meaning has been changed at all. Ironically, these days, if something is "popular" it has become cool for certain groups of people to diminish the meaning strictly for the purpose of staying out of the mainstream culture. ("My favorite band is more obscure than your favorite band!")
In my opinion, the artist is never really in control of the context in which people use or receive art. For some, "Hotel California" is just a hotel someplace in California. For others, it's a reference to drug rehab. Whether or not it’s actually about either one of those things is unclear, but for the listener to extract meaning, it depends on the context.
These days, it is difficult to tell what is "original." Almost everything in mainstream media is in some way a copy of something that has been done before. People can only come up with a certain amount of ideas before things start to become unoriginal. The entire concept of reality TV is to take an idea, put a twist on it and create a new show, then take that idea and put another twist on it and create a new show, and on and on and on. Not only does that concept apply to reality TV, but to pop culture in general. Eventually, nothing is authentic anymore.
In my opinion, the artist is never really in control of the context in which people use or receive art. For some, "Hotel California" is just a hotel someplace in California. For others, it's a reference to drug rehab. Whether or not it’s actually about either one of those things is unclear, but for the listener to extract meaning, it depends on the context.
These days, it is difficult to tell what is "original." Almost everything in mainstream media is in some way a copy of something that has been done before. People can only come up with a certain amount of ideas before things start to become unoriginal. The entire concept of reality TV is to take an idea, put a twist on it and create a new show, then take that idea and put another twist on it and create a new show, and on and on and on. Not only does that concept apply to reality TV, but to pop culture in general. Eventually, nothing is authentic anymore.
TTp69-70.culture
I wouldn't go as far to say that if something becomes popular that it's value or meaning is diminished because meaning is so contextual. If meaning changes from person to person, then we can't generally say that ALL meanings to ALL people have dimished all of something's value to all of those people. And then there are those people who claim that certain music or people mean more to them, simply because they know more about the subject or person, but why can't the lyrics of a song be just as meaningful to a person who's just heard it? The "ownership" of meaning would be another interesting topic to discuss.
As far as artists and whether or not they ever do have control of the context in which people use or recieve their art- they don't, at least not ever completely. They may be able to limit the number of types of contexts in which it is recieved, but it still can't be guaranteed that their art will forever be recieved solely in that context. For example, Shakira primarily became famous as a Latin American artists- only having albums produced in Spanish. But that does not mean that just because she didn't sing songs in English that english-only-speaking people didn't listen to her records or have interpretations of her music (even without knowing the translations).
And in terms of "aunthenticity" and "inauthenticity"- what, if anything, these days is authentic? As far as art goes, who was the first artist? Can any art today really be defined as "original"? The art and music and film and literature produced today, was produced by people who were raised with the knowlledge of previous artists and musicians and authors and no matter how much we try to be original there is always a trace of the contributions of other's ideas- whether they are improved or deconstructed or expanded, etc.
I don't know if this made sense, but it's the first thing that came out.
As far as artists and whether or not they ever do have control of the context in which people use or recieve their art- they don't, at least not ever completely. They may be able to limit the number of types of contexts in which it is recieved, but it still can't be guaranteed that their art will forever be recieved solely in that context. For example, Shakira primarily became famous as a Latin American artists- only having albums produced in Spanish. But that does not mean that just because she didn't sing songs in English that english-only-speaking people didn't listen to her records or have interpretations of her music (even without knowing the translations).
And in terms of "aunthenticity" and "inauthenticity"- what, if anything, these days is authentic? As far as art goes, who was the first artist? Can any art today really be defined as "original"? The art and music and film and literature produced today, was produced by people who were raised with the knowlledge of previous artists and musicians and authors and no matter how much we try to be original there is always a trace of the contributions of other's ideas- whether they are improved or deconstructed or expanded, etc.
I don't know if this made sense, but it's the first thing that came out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)