Chapter 9: Scientific Looking; Looking at Science

Chapter 9 opens with the notion that, "scientific imagery comes to us with confident authority behind it, in the form of images made by experts, we may assume these images are an objective representation of knowledge, whether we view them through popular media or through professional publication."(Sturken and Cartwright, 347) However it should also be notes that, "scientific images and looking practices are as dependent on cultural context and culturally informed interpretation as images from popular culture, art, and the news."(347). Thus, scientific images, and cultural images are not two wholly separate notions, but two branches of one discourse. I found that I too had fallen under the assumption that these were in fact, two separate area's of visual studies- however this is not true in the least.
One example of scientific images and notions within cultural images would be in one of the most recent U.S. cinematic hits. Sturken and Cartwright discuss phrenology- "the belief that outward physical human body, and most particularly the cranium and the facial features, could be read for signs of temperament, moral capacity, health, or intelligence."(358) An example of phrenology would aptly be used in the scene from Quentin Tarantino's film, "Django Unchained".  A scene is presented in which Leonardo DiCaprio describes how the skull of an Africa American person has "three distinct dots", and that all African American's possess these same dots when the their skulls are studied. However, people of Anglo/European descent do not have said dots. He believes the dots to be an indication of the inferior intelligence level of that particular group, thus exemplifying the "superior" intelligence of the latter. This is a clear representation in which the scientific images influenced the belief of it's viewers at the time- or as Beddoe's writing suggests, "visual science of the body can be used to support a deeply racist cultural ideology." (359)
It would seem that phrenology can largely be agreed upon as a completely outdated and irrelevant science- one which formerly encouraged the bigoted views of dominant ideological groups. However, it is true that even today scientific images still play a role in cultural media, however unrecognized.

Postmodernism: Pastiche and Parody

Sturken and Cartwright define pastiche as "an imitation that announces itself as such and that involves combining elements from other sources." (Sturken and Cartwright, 328). In honor of the new season of Game of Thrones, the photo I used was of Robert Stark a.k.a. "King of the North".

This image of Rob Stark clearly is a pastiche of the 2008 Barack Obama campaign poster- they use the same text, the same colors, and it even represents a similar politically aimed meaning. There is no way anyone could mistake this as an original work of art, at least not in the U.S. where this particular photo of Obama is iconic of him, his campaign, and for the notion of "America" given the colors. This is a mix of a iconic pop culture image -Robert Stark from Game of Thrones- with another iconic political image- President Obama- to form this new image that still bears similar meaning to the original because of it's iconic value and context. Rob Stark is attempting to gain the throne and become king- similarly to Obama and his (successful) attempt to become president. Thus, creating a "layered intertext between the two works" that allows us to enjoy the new image for its usage of the old. (331).

However, there is not intention of "making fun" of President Obama in this photo- as if often seen within parody's. Parody's are within the same category pastiche- but only in the circumstance that the pastiche, "engage in reworking elements of the past". (329). One such film that does this would be Monty Python and the Holy Grail- which "parodies" the historical story of the Arthurian legend of King Arthur's quest for the holy grail. The film turns medieval customs and historical events more satirical- such as making fun of the "The Brave Sir Robin", who is is serenaded by his minstrel whom is calling him a coward for running away from a battle. Not very brave of him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4SJ0xR2_bQ

Though pastiche and parody's are not wholly original, it would seem that the new images formed derive there own meaning and truth, even if from the base of another image or work.

Create Your Own Post- The Media Masses

The concept of "The Masses" was originated by Karl Marx, typically "used with a negative connotation"... "it was used to characterize audiences as undifferentiated groups of people, individuals who are passively accepting and uncritical of media practices and messages authored by corporations with profit motives , whose messages support dominant ideologies ad ruling class and/or government interests (Sturken and Cartwright, 225)." However, this notion was formed post World War Two- a number of years ago, and given this recent spike in technology, media, and consumption of said information, the world is a wholly different place than it once was. My question- do the masses still exist?
It's true there there is much media today that is targeted to large audiences- cable, movies, radio, music, et cetera. These all reach a huge "mass" of audiences per given day. However, when "mass media" and "the masses" was a more widely accepted term, media was also much more finite. There were movies, cable, radio, music, et cetera in that period but to such a limited extent. People had the choice of five television shows, 2 black and white movies, and there were limited radio stations. Given that, the media had much wider ideologies and was applicable to everyone- as it had to be. However, today, "electronic and digital media, such as the Internet, the Web, cell phones, wireless communication devices, as well as the rise of narrowcast television programming...transformed the landscape of mass media in the 1980's, 1990's, and 2000's"(Struken and Cartwright, 226). This is to say that even the large groups, say white males, or middle ages women all have their own niche in consumer media. For instance, the example of a middle aged woman makes most people think of romantic comedies, soap opera's, ect. They are no longer the typical housewife seen on "I Love Lucy", not the Africa American male the "villain" as they were typically often portrayed- everyone now has their own specific "tastes, interests, and language groups."
Thus, my argument is that mass media is no longer truly in existence, there is always a smaller, more narrowcast audience being targeted versus the media being made and consumed years ago that applied to many audiences and taste groups.

Internet Memes- Overly Attached Girlfriend

The issue of ownership, copies, and copyright is one not often though about, but is a large factor in the legal management of many digital images. Sturken and Cartwright note how in today's digital age, "digital imaging has made the possibilities for reproduction and ownership of images virtually limitless. This raises issues about the status of rights to reproductions and changes in the legal structures through which the circulation of reproductions is regulated"(Sturken and Cartwright, 204). Similarly, "images and media forms are no longer so tightly bound to the idea of representing a real [image], and visual technologies are no longer as pervasively regarded as replicating or objectively performing the work of the eye" (220).
Many famous images, such as that of Che Guevara, mentioned by Sturken and Cartwright, is one that has been reproduced in many different formats to elicit different meanings, or to convey a specific connotative meaning- often  protesters edited images that had connotative images suggesting Che was the leader that Cuba was looking for. As stated, "the profileration of images through reproduction also means that images can be more easily accompanied by different kinds of text, which can dramatically change the signifcation of the image"(203). People are able to alter this image much more freely today online than in the past, when use of this image became a legal battle for ownership.

What comes into question is where the boundaries between an original work and a copy/copyright come into play.  Often times an image is posted- in this instance is a photo of a wide eyed girl. To give a brief background, this girl featured above posted a "cover" of Justin Beiber's song "Boyfriend" but made the lyrics all about her stalker like tendencies. The video received a lot of attention and thus the meme of her was created, and people simply insert text that is something a "crazy girlfriend" might do. This skews the connotative meaning of the image to that even if someone had not seen her video- they could still understand that she is "the overly attached girlfriend". Her expectant look and wide eyes would likely be the signifier of both photos- signifying that she is happy. The signified, is that she is an insane because of the accompaniment of the text along with the image of the girl. The overall meaning of both images would be that this girlfriend is too attached/mentally unstable because of her behavior- which is uncharacteristic of someone in a normal, healthy relationship.

Self Portrait

Empirical Representation

Symbolic Representation

The first photo above is a traditional self portrait, or "selfie" photo that I took on my computer. The image has clearly been altered into a black and white photo, but other than that the image is a straight forward photo image of a girl smiling for a camera. Meanwhile, the second photo is a collage of activities, people, and other things that make up "Mary Scanlan".

Though these images are both very different from one another, they both represent one person, me. They also both contain signifiers, as well as the signified. Sturken defines the signifier as the "word, image or object within a sign that convey meaning," and the signified as "the mental concept of the referent, which together with the signifier makes the sign." (460, 459). The signifier of the self portrait would be a smiling girl. Then, the signified meaning of that image would be that the girl, myself, is happy or excited. She has something to smile about, which typically entails that the person within the image is in a good mood. 

The signifier of the second image is not as straight forward. There are a number of different elements to this photo that give it meaning. On one of the more basic levels, this is a pile of things. Objects, photo's, a metal, and so on. A basic signifier could be exactly that- a denotative meaning that this is a pile of someone's belonging and nothing more. From there, the signified could be that this person needs to clean, or that there is something worth money here- that is why someone took a photo of the pile. This photo does not translate as easily into signifier and signified as simply as the self portrait.

The empirically representative photo shows my literal appearance. I am pale with brown hair, and I have blue eyes. This does not give the "spectator" of this image much information about me. However, the symbolic representation does just that, it is much more complex and informative of who I am. I love track and field, so I placed a bib number as well as one of my metals into the photo. There is an oatmeal colored knit beanie, and though I can't knit, I love things are knit. I also am very close with my family, so I placed an old photo of my mother whom I am especially close with. This transitions into the green celtic patch; I am Irish and proud of it, so my heritage means a lot to me. I love the ocean and live very close to it at home, so I used a frame made of sea glass to show this. This display gives the viewer/spectator much more to interpellate, as opposed to a simple photo of myself.

Interpellation

You are flipping through Facebook and a photo is displayed on your news feed. Instead of passing by without a second though, you stop and focus on the photo. You have just been interpellated by that image- to be interpellated by an image is to be "hailed"(103) by the elements, qualities, and subject of the image. Interpellation is thus, less about the context of the image itself, and more about "creating a relationship between the viewer and the image alone than it is about situating the viewer in a field  of meaning production..."(103). Rather, what is it that draws the viewer to the image, what "interpellates"a person to an image? A color, a texture, the connotative meaning perhaps? This, as Sturken and Cartwright would agree, is subjective, because "the meaning of individual human subject is not universal but both historically and culturally contingent" (102).
In this photo below, I have taken a photo during a thunderstorm in my hometown. It was a storm that happened when I was driving with my friends, it rained briefly, but continued to thunder and lightning heavily for hours. It was so bright that we pulled into a parking lot to take some photos.

This is a photo I happened to take at the moment some lightning occurred. My gaze is naturally drawn to the lightning, and the outlines and shadows that it creates within the cloud. From this, there is an insinuation of space in between the clouds, and gives hard lines to the outlines of the cloud, when really it is gaseous and there are no such lines.
I am interpellated by this image not only for the image itself, which I find very visually interesting, but for the memories that it draws back. Later, the rain returned, and me and my friend all  got caught in the rain because we were taking pictures. We all got soaked and had to wait in her car in the parking lot because the rain was so heavy we couldn't see the roads. This knowledge I has provided me with a context for the occurrence of the photo- much more than most people know. Due to the background and the relationship I have with the photo, it interpellates me because I have the ability to recognize myself "as a member of the world of meaning (103)." Without me, this photo is simply a picture of some rain cloud an lightning, but for me, I am able to interpellate the image and "hailed" with a meaning that it may not be  exactly like anybody else.

Cultural Appropriation, Blog Post #2

Sturken and Cartwright describe cultural appropriation as "the process of "borrowing" and changing the meaning of cultural products, slogans, images, and fashion (83).” In simpler terms, one can take a product, image, slogan, and manipulate it in such a way that the dominant or preferred reading is now different from the original reading the producer intended. This sort of cultural appropriation is often used to convey a meaning that is typically in conflict or disagree's with the original reading, or an "oppositional reading(55)."

Often cultural appropriation is "key to political art (83)." An example of cultural appropriation in modern times would be a cover photo of President Barack Obama on the cover of Newsweek...

This image, not so subtly makes Obama look similarly to the Hindu God Kali. Kali is notorious for her many arms, and for also being the God of Death and Destruction. Though this text may read, "God of All Things", the way the image has been manipulated/appropriated provides the reader with context to take a wholly different meaning from it. This image happens to also "oppose the dominant ideology"(83), another common feature of cultural appropriation that was mentioned earlier.

Sturken and Cartwright also note, the dominant reading is no more accurate that any other reading of a product, image, slogan, ext. This is because a meaning "is not inherent in images...rather meanings are the product of complex social interactions among image, viewers, and context (55)."
Due to this notion, the theme I took from this chapter was of the individuals make the meaning, the image does not. Furthermore, there is no true, or inherent meaning in a photo, we as people make of it what our personal culture has taught it's dominant meaning is.

The ad campaign I chose was for Volkswagen, the slogan being, "Small Wonder."

The dominant reading of this image would likely be something along the lines of how the Volkswagen Beetle is an amazing car for it's small size. This would likely be the connotative meaning of the image/slogan. It is straight forward and to the point, without the slogan, this would simply be an image of an automobile.
However, when this slogan is paired to an image of my brother-in-law holding his newborn daughter, both the image as well as the slogan are given new meaning.

"Small Wonder"

This photo now has much more punctum. Before the slogan was applied, the signifier of the image was a young man holding a newborn. We do not know the relation of circumstances of the photo. When the slogan is applied thought, the new meaning draws of theme's of love, family, fatherhood, and many other heartwarming feelings. The new photo now has cultural appropriated meaning as well as connotative mean about the wonder and joys of new life. 

They Myth of Photographic Truth

In Chapter One of, "Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture", author's Sturken and Cartwright often discuss the idea of "the myth of photographic truth". What I took from the reading was that the myth of photographic truth is the notion that many people have of the "truthfulness" of a photograph. As Sturken and Cartwright write, "a photograph is often perceived to be an unmediated copy of the real world that provides unbiased truth"(17). However, this is very naive.
In today's modern society, the ability to "manipulate or alter"(18) a photograph to ones desires is simple. People are able to change their looks all together through digital editing websites or applications such as Adobe Photoshop, or even something as simple as Instagram.
Due to such technologies- photographs can no longer be accepted as the truth the once were- no longer are photographs reliable for any sort of information. The "truth-value"(21) of today's photographs is much different from those back in the 50's.
A photo of myself that is representative of the myth of photographic truth would be a picture I have on my Facebook- and the caption reads, "just a quick nap on the roof".

This would lead everyone to believe that I was literally sleeping on the roof to my dorm, considering I have a blanket and pillow with me as well.
However, I wasn't actually sleeping, I was just pretending to be. Here is a photo of moments later, one I did not post to Facebook.

This is also a good instance in which "context influences the perception of the audience"(21). I wrote on Facebook that I was taking a nap, and in addition, the presence of the pillow and blanket would surely provide context and support the impression I was sleeping on the roof, even if this was not the truth of the photograph.

"Art is not a study of positive reality, it is the seeking for ideal truth." 

- John Ruskin