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It would seem that phrenology can largely be agreed upon as a completely outdated and irrelevant science- one which formerly encouraged the bigoted views of dominant ideological groups.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.