COMM 450 Visual Communication Thoughts

[graceang450-blog]

The Fall of Biometric Technology

Magnet’s text “When Biometrics Fall” and Gates’ text “Finding the Face of Terror in Data” presents interesting ideas on the intersection of surveillance biometrics and race. Magnet’s text talked about biometric technologies as dissecting the body and rendering each part of it into a binary code. He argues that this produces surveillant scopophilia the pleasure of dismembering of bodies marked by racialized, gendered, classed and sexualized identities tied to biometric technology. He also talks about the increasing normalization of biometrics as popular culture comes into play.

After 9/11, the issue of homeland security became the narrative the U.S government used to fund biometrics. Through entertainment and CSI related movies such as the Minority Report, Persons of Interest, biometrics has largely been depicted as working perfect and more efficient than other biased identification technologies like photographs and fingerprints. But although there is a large number of films supporting biometrics, there are also a few films out there recently that has promulgated the dangers of biometrics.

One of my favorite episodes of Black Mirror, a sci-fi anthology exploring the dystopian future of high-tech near-future technology, exemplifies this. In Arkangel, an overprotective mom implants a chip into her daughter’s head for security reasons. There an app that shows her daughter’s biometric data and that allows her to blur out “scary” imagery such as a barking dog. This exemplifies the potential “control” that biometrics technology can claim over us. With the “need” to verify identities for security purposes, we see a lot of leniency and magnitude when it comes to invading individuals’ privacy. This is inherently problematic.

In the current narrative of security in the wake of 9/11, we are seeing the categorization of people based on their facial or body characteristics. Anybody who looks remotely like the “face” of terror, as talked about in Gates’ text, anyone who is remotely Arab, which extends to people of color under technology, is interrogated. This securitization of identity is an example of racism, as it assumes new forms and ways of oppressing certain races in today’s society.

The episode of Black Mirror also shocked me as there is real-life biometric technology on fitness trackers that gather data on users’ movements and health. What seems to be overly exaggerated and futuristic is actually a reality in some parts of the world. It was reported this year that police authorities are using facial recognition to name and shame jaywalkers in Shenzhen. 

Camera systems are set up at certain intersections to capture and punish culprits. With enough infractions, these offenses will also affect their individual credit score, which has implications on services they have access to including the ability to get a loan. This is part of China’s larger wish to create a nationwide surveillance system to increase the security and convenience part of citizens’ lives. China’s surveillance system, however, reflects so many ways of “Orwellian” control and manipulation that the government could have over its citizens. It makes me question the implications for citizens that are perceived as the “other”, dangerous or troublesome to the government. With biometrics as the objective measure of what is acceptable in society, what would the future look like?

Image credit: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/business/dealbook/china-facial-recognition.html

[graceang450-blog]

Yarn Bombing as a Form of Resistance Art

The Varda and Close’s readings from this week talk about Yarn Bombing, affixing knitted and crocheted works to public objects, and its implications as a form of street art. Their texts raised interesting questions for me about how our society views certain forms of art in the public sphere. While graffiti and street art is prominently “male-dominated” (22) and connotes violence and aggression, yarn bombing is predominantly female-dominated and is described as “graffiti with grandma sweaters.” (22) From their descriptions, it is already evident that even though Graffiti and Yarn Bombing fall under the same category as Street Art, they are perceived in vastly different/ opposing lights.

According to Varda’s reading, Yarn bombing reconfigures the aesthetics of an otherwise male-dominated public space. Using striking colorful patchworks and strapping them to public objects, yarn bombing is often perceived as more aesthetically pleasing than paint graffiti. Unlike paint graffiti which is associated with criminality and gang violence, Yarn bombing is associated with femininity, playfulness, and cheekiness.

It claims to take action against the dehumanizing feeling of the impersonal city scene by bringing color and joy to the streets. Because it is mostly created with a community and a group of women, it is perceived to be a participatory, positive shared experience that aims to simply personalize public space. Additionally, yarn bombing is perceived positively because it often conveys optimistic messages rather than what may be perceived as threatening, rebellious, and controversial messages that graffiti conveys. The yarn bomb mural pictured above was created by street artist Olek. She uses crochets to cover public spaces in an activist guerilla fashion and cites crochet, her medium of art, as “a metaphor for the complexity and interconnectedness of our body and mind. One of the most well-known work is covering the Charging Bull statue on wall street with her craft as a commentary on the future. A symbol of the strength and power of the American power, Olek decided to use the charging bull to give thanks to its significance and to honor the bull’s sculptor. Just like Olek, yarn bombers’ artistic creations are more benign and malicious; perhaps this is one reason that it is positively viewed in society.

But what I can’t wrap my head around is the classification of yarn bombing as “the paramount form of graffiti.” Graffiti and traces of vandalism in all shapes and forms give rise to inconvenience, aesthetic or not. Thus, yarn bombing inherently claims a public space that is not theirs and thus may infringe on some citizen’s rights.

In her text, Close emphasizes yarn bombing as a vehicle of activism. She talks about how knitting brings connotation of essentialized femininity and has allowed women to transgress the domestic sphere and speak. She also expands on the potential of graffiti knitting in challenging dominant narratives.  

The example above seems to illustrate her point. Artists yarn bombed a segment of the fence on the sidewalk to raise awareness about gender equality. In a quote that says “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament,” the creator(s) of this artwork argue that women should have the authority to decide whether or not they want an abortion. It is not a sin for a woman to choose abortion and males have no place to decide for them. As much as this artwork opens up a dialogue about abortion and women’s rights, I firmly believe that street art as resistance can only impact social issues to an extent. What lies beyond resistance art is a call to action that will structurally change the way systems operate. Yarn bombing the sidewalk to make a statement about abortion may be effective in starting the conversation, but only direct confrontation with lawmakers will make a difference.

[graceang450-blog]

The Biggest Story This Year: Cambridge Analytica Facebook Controversy

Perhaps the biggest social media scandal yet–  reports have found that Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm hired by Trump, gained access to more than 50 million Facebook users to target voters. This sparks new questions about users’ privacy and the capacity of social media to manipulate the mindsets and behavior of individuals in the public.

But first, who and what is Cambridge Analytica?

Cambridge Analytica is a UK-based political consulting firm that uses data to change audience behavior in the commercial and political sector. Combining “predictive data analytics, behavioral sciences and innovative ad tech, they claim to measurably improve brands marketing effectiveness by both in the commercial and technology sector.

I know, this sounds so worrisome already. The fact that a company like Cambridge Analytica exists makes you wonder if someone is watching you read this article right now.

How are they related to President Trump’s 2016 election campaign?

Securing a $15 million investment from wealthy Republican donor Robert Mercer and former adviser to the president, Stephen K.Bannon, Cambridge Analytica was hired by Trump’s campaign team to identify the personalities of American voters to influence their behavior.

… which makes sense since money talks.

In a secret investigation into Cambridge Analytica, Channel 4 News in Britain cast Cambridge Analytica in a harsher light after uncovering that the company has taken great lengths to help their prospective clients win elections, even suggesting entrapping politicians with bribery and more.

What information was collected?

The data was collected based on Facebook users’ identities, friend networks, and likes. Compiling and categorizing users’ data points, the idea was to break down users’ into personality traits and use that information to target them with digital ads. In June 2014, Aleksandr Kogan, a Russian-American psychology professor built an app called “this is your digital life” that seemingly offered a personality prediction to harvest data for Cambridge Analytica.

While 270,000 people downloaded and used the app, more than that number of people were affected because users gave Kogan access to information on themselves as well as their friends who had their privacy settings set to allow it, all on the claim that it was for “academic use.”

Talk about “fake news.” Well played Cambridge Analytica.

So how did Facebook respond?

After learning that Cambridge Analytica lied about deleting the information three years ago, Facebook removed Dr. Kogan’s app from the site. They also issued a statement saying “Several days ago, we received reports that, contrary to the certifications we were given, not all data was deleted. We are moving aggressively to determine the accuracy of these claims…”

But that wasn’t all. To further investigate this scandal, the Facebook team also hired a digital forensics firm to identify potential policy violations.

The company also rolled out a “see how you’re affected” tool on users’ News Feeds and informed users on how they could protect their information by turning off third-party access to their apps that looked like this:

In an effort to restore the public’s trust after the leak, Facebook’s Chief Executive Officer, Mark Zuckerberg, testified before the Congress where he had to address a room full of Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committee members.

In the excruciating 10 hours of questioning, Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook had made mistakes in handling the Cambridge Analytica breach and took responsibility for what happened.

He faced difficulty when senators grilled him on the actions Facebook had taken to protect user data and future policy changes the social media giant plans on taking.

… and had to fill a lot of awkward silences with water gulping.

But he was eventually able to pull through and satisfy the Senate with his answers. Because Zuckerberg took the initiative to concede that the technology industry needed to be regulated, he was able to direct the conversation towards solutions such as comprehensive privacy and data protection legislation. As such, he was able to walk out mostly unscathed.

But how did the public respond?

In response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, a #DeleteFacebook campaign flared up on Twitter.

Twitter users expressed their anger and frustration over political advertisers taking Facebook user information without users’ consent and wrote tweets like this…

and this…

as well as this.

But according to Zuckerberg, the #DeleteFacebook campaign hasn’t had a noticeable effect on active user counts.

As it stands, a majority of the public has largely been willing to accept the breach of privacy for convenience. While a few Facebook users have deactivated their accounts to make a statement, others have chosen to stick with the social media platform as it allows for them to connect with their family and friends and input their personal data into third-party apps with one tap.

As expected of millennials!

The typical Millennial consumer today values convenience and experiences more than anything else. At its core, social media has successfully attracted Millennial customers because it allows them to connect with their peers in the shared experience of posts and likes. 

So for now, amidst being in the center of the largest social media scandal yet, Facebook still remains a social networking staple for youths.

Giphy Links: 

https://giphy.com/gifs/BaywatchMovie-funny-comedy-xUPGcEw56dJj3fJFJe

https://giphy.com/gifs/colbertlateshow-stephen-colbert-late-show-millie-bobby-brown-3o6ZtctTqhjH5H7pv2

https://giphy.com/gifs/franceinfo-donald-trump-applause-Ov7lAOUsu4Yo0

https://giphy.com/gifs/movie-cyberpunk-sci-fi-FE414y8ZcB7AQ

https://giphy.com/gifs/crying-jon-stewart-hAcDHEhZHA2bu

https://giphy.com/gifs/facebook-zuckerberg-testimony-8vzm8lUPcii5z0ZJb4

https://giphy.com/gifs/zuckerberg-cPNXOm7ln8HwK7UcbV

https://giphy.com/gifs/zuckerberg-testimony-1zKdb4WSHgY4QKAsjo

https://giphy.com/gifs/funny-lol-TqRkEhK7Dnv6U

https://giphy.com/gifs/harry-potter-idk-shrug-720g7C1jz13wI

https://giphy.com/gifs/reactiongifs-3L6BKKal7E3IY

[graceang450-blog]

A Critique on Sabotaging the Brand through Parody

Harold’s text on Anti-Logos: Sabotaging the Brand through parody sheds light on the checks and balances that the public uses against multinational corporations who get away with corruptive business practices behind the scenes. Corporations prioritize capitalistic and monetary value over moral value in their business sometimes. This has given way to less than ethical manufacturing, production or delivery process of their goods. One example that Harold mentions is Nike’s use of sweatshops in creating their infamous sneakers with the swoosh. In an attempt to combat this practice, adbusters, groups that seek to expose the reality behind glamorous advertising, use ad parodies and subvertising to do so. ““Those who produce ad parodies hope to render opaque a mode of public address that tends toward transparency by virtue of its utter ubiquity.” (9) In hopes that viewers would wake up with the realization that advertisements are meant to manipulate and mask the unethical practices behind a corporation, adbusters makes parodies of familiar corporate advertising campaigns that individuals can relate to.

An interesting question that Harold’s text raises, and that I agree with, is the effectiveness of ad parodies and subvertising. While it captures people’s attention and may even go viral on social media, this ad sabotage is limited because the rhetoric seeks to negate and repudiate the status quo based off one rhetoric and fails to explore other alternatives or solutions for the consumer. Working off of the corporation’s message (Adbusters’ creation of the Black Unswoosher), these ad spoofs not only add to the brand awareness of the targeted corporation but also, ironically, aligns itself with the same marketing tactics it criticizes.

An ad parody by SNL which parodied the Pepsi Commercial in early April last year garnered more than 5.9M views on YouTube. The parody begins with the writer-director of the Pepsi Commercial sharing his concept with friends and family members minutes before the shoot is carried out. His excitement slowly fades into disappointment and worry as his ideas are shot down every person he speaks to. The parody functions as both a social commentary and humorous skit as it plays off the critiques of the Pepsi campaign. The director’s explanation of his ad campaign as “an homage to the resistance, reminiscent of Black Lives Matter” is met with resistance from a member of the black community who asks him to drop the idea and “run to his car.” The skit even ends with Kendall Jenner on the phone with a friend saying “I stop the police from shooting black people by handing them a Pepsi. I know, its cute, right?” The parody does an excellent job of highlighting the main critiques of the campaign in resistance to the dominant narrative of the Pepsi campaign. It critiques the Pepsi commercial for being tone-deaf and even raises the question of whether there was a non-white member consulted in the creation of the idea.

But as Harold mentions in her text, there are limitations to sabotaging the brand through parody. The 5.9M views on YouTube of this parody must have also translated to some sort of brand awareness of the Pepsi brand itself. Circulated by social media users and media platforms, the ad parody contributes to the mentions and popularity of Pepsi. While Pepsi gains negative press, its brand and logo become more recognizable to global citizens. Another limitation of ad parodies is the oversimplification of the dynamic relationships between media images. In this instance, SNL’s ad parody does a good job of exposing all the facets of criticisms of the Pepsi campaign. But other ad parodies don't’ do as great a job.

An example is a parody of the Nike Colin Kaepernick campaign. The original ad is of Colin Kaepernick with the caption “Believe in something even if it means sacrificing everything” in a commentary of the need for citizens to stand up for racial inequality in the U.S. This image was quickly appropriated with other images of celebrities and even politicians. One, in particular, replaced the caption “Just do it” with “Just Brexit”. While this ad parody calls for a one-sided view of Brexit as arguably“rash” and “uncalled for”, it fails to acknowledge any value in the arguments for Brexit such as better control for immigration and favorable trade deals among others. This is evidence that in subvertising, not all grounds are covered. There can be misunderstanding and miscommunications that create groupthink and extreme views that may not be favorable for consumers as well. This is seen in not only SNL sketches but also TV show hosts parodies and even PETA, who tend to oversimplify complex messages and perspectives on an issue.

Image credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/9dhr35/just_brexit/

[graceang450-blog]

Jumping on the bandwagon of Commodity Feminism

2018 is the year of jumping on bandwagons. Marketing noise is louder than ever with more and more companies bombarding consumers with their messages. To cut through the noise, brands face pressure today to market a compelling brand narrative. This has diluted the authenticity of advertising messages that are circulating to consumers. A makeup brand that has focused on capitalizing their support for feminism by branding themselves as advocates of real social change is Covergirl. Like Dove, Covergirl has created multiple ad campaigns around multiculturalism, diversity, and feminism. According to their Senior Vice President, Ukonwa Ojo, they claim to challenge the notion that women are not multidimensional and that makeup doesn’t play a role in women’s actual lives. Their recent campaign “#GirlsCan” emphasizes the notion of global postfeminist citizenship that Murray talks about in her text. 

The #GirlsCan ad campaign features famous women from diverse backgrounds including Ellen DeGeneres, Katy Perry, and Pink. The women enter into a chorus of saying “Girls Can’t” with each of them listing stereotypes and discouragements that girls face in their daily life. We see women staring confidently into the camera, with their arms crossed and chins held high while neon texts in the background slide across the screen. Phrases such as “feel it” and “girls can” accentuate the main message Covergirl aims to convey: women are breaking the barriers of these stereotypes and are ready to fight back. While this message has good intentions, the semiotics in this ad reinforces the idea of “cause marketing” and “commodity feminism” that Murray characterizes as oppressing rather than liberating. It is obvious with the close-up shots of women, the juxtaposition of bright pink text against black and fast-moving images that Covergirl is trying to evoke emotions in its audience. 

By advocating for the empowerment of women, the brand connects with its female consumers by identifying itself as a brand that cares about social issues and consumers. But there are many problems that come with branding real social change in the face of marketing. By creating an ad campaign meant to drive sales, the ad itself endorses the female role as ideological and material consumers. Women, who buy from Covergirl are also deriving their identity as “Girls who can” from the internalization of these meanings and representations produced by Covergirl, no matter how limited they may be. For example, the #GirlsCan campaign doesn’t take into account all of the dimensions and facets of what it means to be a woman. While it attempts to incorporate women from different backgrounds, the message behind Covergirl doesn’t have any layers to its meaning. #GirlsCan is not an all-encompassing phrase that describes the experiences of all women and thus in a way, misconstrues a social myth. Similar to the real beauty campaign by Dove, this campaign subjects its viewers and consumers to Covergirl’s conformity and a one-sided ideal of femininity. This is problematic as it fails to ignite any real social change. It only seeks to drive sales and profuse consensus for Covergirl’s stance on Feminism.

In her text, Banet-Weiser talks about brands building narratives to further an effective and authentic relationship with their consumers. But at the heart of American advertising are representations of hegemonic masculinity that devalues women. Listing ads surrounding liquor sports and cars, Banet-Weiser talks about ads only organizing their messages around normative, masculine values of competitiveness, adventurousness, willpower, and persistence. An example of this is Audi’s Daughter ad. 

Featuring a girl racing against boys in a soapbox derby while her father asks “What do I tell my daughter? Do I tell her that despite her education, her drive, her skills, her intelligence, she will automatically be valued as less than every man she meets?” We see the daughter racing past her competitors bravely even while her male competitors try to sabotage her efforts. The ad ends with her father concluding “Maybe I’ll be able to tell everything differently.” As the background fades, Audi’s tagline “Progress is for everyone fills the screen.”

On the surface, Audi appears to be a brand that is furthering the dialogue of what it means to be a female. We see the grit, determination in the little girl’s face as she faces her obstacles fearlessly and without hesitation. While Audi breaks down the stereotypes that women face, it does so in a way derives power from the idea of masculinity. The little girl that we see in the ad adheres to the normative, “masculine” values that we place on a pedestal in our society: a sense of competitiveness, willpower, independence, and persistence. This ultimately still centers itself around the idea of the “traditional American male identity” and thus doesn’t do much to claim the power and authority that a woman can possess.

[graceang450-blog]

The Shifting Portrayal of Women in Advertising

Sivulka’s text “Soap, Sex, and Cigarettes: A Cultural History of American Advertising” brought up interesting questions about the dynamic interactions between advertisers and consumers. One topic that the text touches on is the shift between attitudes in the portrayal of women from the early 20th century to modern times. It was interesting to read about the transition between the early 20th century’s portrayal of women as “perky young things” and “homemakers eager to serve husbands” to today’s portrayal of women as breadwinners and independent, strong figures. Sivulka also brings up the idea of Reverse Sexism marketing, the idea that marketers are increasingly tapping into feminist ideals of advertising. While I acknowledge the efforts of Reverse Sexism Marketing, I would argue that this form of marketing is one, not as commonplace in the commercial space as the author describes it and two, serves a superficial motive rather than a genuine drive for change.

In 2015, Carls Jr released a Charlotte McKinney Superbowl ad to garner attention for their all natural beef burgers. 

The 52-second ad caused an uproar amongst consumers for its objectification and hypersexualization of Charlotte McKinney. The ad begins with a seemingly naked McKinney walking towards the camera, with her golden locks flowing behind her. The camera captures a top-down angle of her chest, enough to insinuate that she is scantily clad or nude without being obscene. The camera captures her naked body in front of suggestive props such as two round, melons that are placed on a weighing scale. The ad ends with McKinney stepping out into the middle of the street and taking a bite out of a Carls Jr Burger while bystanders in the background look in awe. Carls Jr’s McKinney ad cooked up a lot of controversies when it was first released because of the blatant objectification of McKinney. It is obvious that the target audience of this commercial was for men because the ad was produced with the male gaze in mind. Juxtaposing men’s sexual desire for McKinney with their hunger/desire for food, the ad sought to mainly target men, specifically young, white, middle-class men.

What is interesting to see is that in the same year, Always’s #LikeAGirl ad was also released during the Super Bowl. 

In a 60 second video, the ad pushed for the differences in how young women, boys, and young girls perceived the phrase “like a girl.” It garnered positive attention in the media as it changed the conversation about what it meant to run, kick, think, lead “like a girl.” This was also the first time that a feminine care product was advertised during the Superbowl.

While Sivulka’s text mentions the shift in advertisers and advertisement’s attitudes toward women, it seems to me that there is a large disparity between what has been done to push/ redefine the boundaries of the portrayal of women and what has yet to be done. Advertisers are still falling back on “old” ways of advertising, by perpetuating stereotypes and supporting dominant cultures of “seeing.” As images and videos that reflect societal issues, advertisements are a way to view how our visual culture has transitioned and changed. While advertisers are seeking new ways to target emerging demographics such as the African American, Latino and Asian community, it is safe to say that there is still room for change. I would also argue that as Silvulka mentions, advertisers are only seeking to market to different demographics today because of their buying power. Therefore, the idea of diversity is an illusion in advertisements. With an implicit racial hierarchy still in place, in which the young, white male dictate cultural norms, advertisements still reflect the problems in our society.

However, it is encouraging that brands such as Always are attempting to change the dominant narrative in advertisements. The fact that the ad was able to clinch the Clio Awards and garner attention in the media indicates that today’s consumers are also more invested in seeking social change. With the rising demand for the corporate social responsibility of companies by our generation, I also remain hopeful that advertising could promulgate social change.

[graceang450-blog]

Food in the Digital Age

This week’s readings on the consumption of food in the digital age brought up important questions for me about food as a marker of identity. Just like how Pierre Bourdieu relates food choices to a socioeconomic gradient and one’s “cultural capital”, I think food symbolizes and delineates distinctions in identities. Additionally, with the exploding popularity of Instagram, food is not only an object for consumption but pleasure and glamour – an experience to be shared with friends and the larger Instagram community.

Today, everyone can be a foodie. Mobile media, as Lupton describes, as allowed for individuals to document their consumption of food and share it with the world with just one click. While blogs, website, discussion forums were popular in the early Internet days, the trendy social media platform Instagram is the platform today for sharing photos of Foodporn.

In February last year (2017), there were over 168, 375, 343 posts on Instagram accompanied by the hashtag #food and 76.239,441 posts accompanied by the hashtag #foodporn. But what’s interesting to see is that even with the proliferation of food posts by mundane people and the increasing access for ordinary people to post their own food experience, there is also an increase in the number of Instagram food bloggers. As food became trendy, Instagram became the platform to market restaurants, lifestyles, and cuisines. Essentially replacing traditional web blogging altogether and, to some extent, YouTube videos showcasing food, Instagram has created its own vehicle of participatory culture. Foodie Instagram influencers such as @lafoodie, @EaterLosAngeles, @ConsumingLA, and @thenaughyfork are reaping the rewards of this new culture.

In particular, @TheNaughtyFork, an Instagram Foodie Influencer by the name of Sam Schnur epitomizes the new foodie trend on Instagram. With over 688K followers, Schnur makes a fortune off of her food-porny pictures, each garnering over 10K likes. 

In this image, she uses Boomerang, a short 3-second video, to feature a cheese string pull from a Deep Dish Pizza, Chicago style. Captured from a horizontal, side angle which places emphasizes on the cheese string pull, the Boomerang captivates and tantalizes the audience. It seems to be within our reach because of its extreme zoomed frame, but it nevertheless remains within the screen of our computers. Due to the framing, orientation as well as the depth of field (focus on the pizza itself), this pizza becomes a shared experience and emotion between the creator and the audience. Glistening and dripping, the Furthermore, Schnur’s Instagram post is accompanied by her cheery and enthusiastic punny caption “All the CHEESE feeeels!” This further heightens the sense of intimacy and connection between her audience and herself.  

This foodporn post also functions as an identity marker because of the interactions within the Instagram community. By liking this post or any other foodporn post, you demarcate your identity by distinguishing yourself from the average Instagram user. Beyond that, you are a food lover who is willing to spend money on epicurean pleasures. You relate to other food lovers because you understand that food is not only an object that you need, but you desire. In labeling yourself as a foodie with your like, comment or follow, you’re identifying yourself as someone who sees the lifestyle of consuming food as glamorous.

Sources https://www.foodbloggersofcanada.com/whats-working-on-instagram-for-food-bloggers/   https://www.instagram.com/thenaughtyfork/

[graceang450-blog]

Humor in Cartoons as a Vehicle for Social Commentary

As a child, I would spend hours sitting in front of the TV, eyes glued to the screen as my favorite Cartoon Network characters came on screen. It was my happy place where I lived in a world full of possibilities; it was my escape from reality. I never knew that cartoons, a form of animation could also be a form of social realism and commentary on our society. This week, Mittell’s “Cartoon Realism” and Krueger’s “Aaron McGruder’s The Boondocks in Animation” reminded me that animation can also comment on its current political and social landscape and provoke thought.

Mittel distinguishes cartoons, predominantly children’s audience animation which features whimsical content, from animation, a neutral term that describes the process in which stories are told with a series of images. This was interesting to me because cartoons have always been seen as a form of entertainment, often humorous that is not taken seriously. Perceived as “child’s play” or a medium that aims to mindlessly entertain, cartoons are the perfect medium for commentary precisely because of the reason that it is perceived as “mindless.” But behind, every satirical joke lies a commentary on our world itself, as seen in the Simpsons.

Humor is an important element because it allows for cartoons to provoke thought the further a conversation in an indirect and less seemingly aggressive way. This is the “social realism” aspect of cartoons/animations.

If we examine standup comedy, we will find a lot of similarities between this medium in shining light on societal issues and the medium of cartoons. One of my favorite stand up comedians is Ali Wong, a stand-up comedian who speaks a lot about adulthood, motherhood and day-to-day mundane events. In her Netflix show, one of her comedic punchlines was “I want my husband to get us to a certain point financially where I can comfortably afford sliced mango.” “I’m talking about that Whole Foods mango. That $10 –a box Whole Foods mango that was sliced by white people.” 

Ali’s punchline about having mango sliced “by a dude named Noah” could be objected against or questioned if it wasn’t delivered in the context of a joke. But because humor is present, it makes it so much easier to make a commentary, in this case, on the norm of whites having higher socioeconomic class and people of color having lower socioeconomic class.

This is also seen in cartoons/ animations such as Rick and Morty and Family Guy that has been widely popular amongst adults. In one particular episode of Rick and Morty, the dog snowball comes to terms with the power imbalance between humans and dogs and decides to act against the system. 

Frivolous and whimsical, the episode watched both by teenagers and grown adults doesn’t seem like much. But its reflexivity and self-awareness “mirrors what is weird and askew in American society.” (Mittel, 22) It often serves as a site of opposition to say what needs to be said without sounding overly aggressive. And because these cartoons “enlist audiences by addressing them and rewarding them for being in the know,” (Krueger, 323), the audience is also more willing to internalize these layers of meanings. When I watch Rick and Morty or The Simpsons, I am not only laughing at its surface-level slapstick content, I am also laughing at the pieces of truth and social commentary that resonate with myself. This is the power of cartoons; its ability to create realism by exposing social problems constantly in different scenarios, while in the face of humor, makes it powerful as a medium of change.

As it stands, political cartoons have even landed their creators into trouble, gone viral as a statement to rebel, and created a continuous dialogue about issues in societal. It serves as a check and balance against the dominant ideologies and narratives that authorities create.

[graceang450-blog]

VR as a catalyst for Social Realism in Video Games

This week’s readings by Galloway and Sawrey, Lee and Totilo brought up interesting questions regarding the impact of video games on youths. In Galloway’s reading, he differentiates between “realisticness” and “realism.” While he qualifies “realistic-ness” in video games as visual aspects that simulates reality, he explains “realism” as games that are not only visually realistic but that touches on deep-rooted issues in our real world. He calls these games “games that reflect critically on the minutia of everyday life, replete as it is with struggle, personal drama, and injustice.” (Galloway, 225) This brought up a crucial point to me– that there is a subtle but important difference in realistic narratives and realistic representations. As Galloway mentions, Final Fantasy can have stimulating visual elements in the game that almost makes you seem as if you’re part of the game, but that doesn’t mean that we’re unable to perceive that the game is fictional.

It makes sense that as a society, we should be concerned about the impact of certain forms of entertainment such as video games that might negatively impact the minds of youths. The debate about violence in video games has been a longstanding one. Even to this day, parents, academia and the public are still at odds about whether violent video games create destructive personalities in children.  And perhaps, this is amplified by Virtual Reality today.

With the increasingly realistic nature that technology provides, the perception of “reality” in video games and its impact on its consumers also shifts. With just one slip of a headset today, you’re launched into a 3D world, a realistic narrative in an instant. Whether that might mean being situated in a war-torn zone with your character as a soldier or a civilian, the fact that these visual elements are “surrounding” you make the narratives and the different ideals installed in the game even more persuasive. To me, VR has the opportunity to incite change in a good and bad way. If we forget about violent video games for a minute and talk about games that raise social and political issues, doesn’t this seem like an opportunity to depict the realities of society and inspire change? Just like the video game “Papers, Please,” games that touch on an important current social issue could change the minds of individuals who play the game and realize the emotions and logic behind a certain action.

One project that comes to mind for me is Virtual Reality’s emphasis on Human rights. Ryot, a next-generation motion picture studio has done amazing things like take VR technology to Nepal and document from start to finish the impact of the 7.8 magnitude ear quake that destroyed Kathmandu and Bhaktapur in Nepal. (Riot)

 If video games implemented social justice or real-life societal issues in their content, they too like Ryot, could incite change across the globe. Projects such as this makes me believe that Virtual Reality could change the game landscape and contribute to social realism in gaming. If kept entertained, gamers could put themselves in someone else’s shoes and learn from their experience. Afterall, education can be embedded in video games too.

[graceang450-blog]

Branding Blackness: Now vs Then

This week, Browne’s text “Branding Blackness (Biometric Technology and the Surveillance of blackness” brought a lot of questions about the biasedness of technological systems, most notably biometrics that has been met with controversy in the media. Before Browne’s article, my knowledge of technology and the ways it could be skewed to better aligned with one population’s remained low. After Browne’s article, I have a better idea of how biometric identification can not only “prefer” a certain race but also undermine minorities in society.

Browne speaks about branding blackness as a practice that resonated long ago. Historically situated, branding blackness started as a practice to ascribe meaning to certain bodies as units of tradable goods. It was first used as a way to signify people as commodities in the 18th century. One story that stuck with me was that enslaved blacks were branded with “D.Y Duke of York” (Browne, 94) to distinguish them from other slaveholding entities. This is itself was also a practice of categorization, to separate the “fit” from the “fitter” and “fittest”, quite like the grades that you would give slabs of meat at the marketplace. I see similarities in this as cattle branding/ livestock branding in which owners would brand their livestock to identify them as theirs.

Livestock is branded, often with a branding iron, and other painful methods for the purpose of proof of ownership. In many cases, the industry considers it the prima facie proof of ownership. But other than ownership, livestock are also marked with numbers for identification of their quality of taste. There are different inspection marks that are placed on raw meat, raw poultry, and processed products to identify meats that are marketable.  

For example, Prime grade signifies young, well-fed beef cattle perfect for prime steaks while standard and commercial grades signifies ungraded/ “store brand”, lower quality meats. We can draw comparisons from branding blackness to branding livestock. The act of “branding” in itself is degrading as enslaved blacks were dehumanized and depicted as “animals” whose sole purpose are labor. Forced to work in the fields and obey orders from their owners, enslaved backs could not function that their own intellectual property and instead spent their lives serving and pleasing others. They also could not taste freedom if they ever left their owners too as their “brand/ mark” would always serve to identify and categorize them as inferior.

This brings me to the existing ways we identify and categorize with our biometric systems today. In the name of safety, biometrics also marks us with a “number” and method of identification that we don’t have a say in. As the people with authority are whites, the majority race, the codes that go into our biometrics system are implicitly racially biased and thus raises trouble in the system itself. There has been news in the media reporting that biometrics have indeed misidentified people. 

Most notably, the U.S homeland security claimed that a would-be imposter was prevented from entering the United States last week when facial recognition spotted something human inspectors would not have been able to. But this brings up an important question: What happens if this man was misidentified, and the algorithms we use to match the physical characteristics of an individual’s face to his identity recorded in the U.S government’s system fails? What will we do then? In the name of technology and the opportunities it provides us with, we might be branding blackness as we did.

Pic 1:https://livestockbranding.net/branding_electric.html

Pic 2:http://factsheets.okstate.edu/documents/ansi-3972-meat-inspection-and-grading/ 

[graceang450-blog]

Stigmas Mothers in China Face

We examine The Scientific Gaze with Stabile’s text Shooting the Mother: Fetal Photography and the Politics of Disappearance and Thornton’s text’s Brain Culture: Neuroscience and Popular Media this week. This week’s readings made me think about the controversies, stigmas, traditions, and myths that surround pregnancy. Growing up in Southeast Asia, particularly in China where there are a big emphasis and belief in “tradition”, I’ve heard my fair share of stories of the “Dos” and “Don't(s)” during pregnancy. These rules, in a lot of ways, resemble the “Governmentality” that Foucault mentions in his argument of how individuals regulate themselves in the name of “good”. 

During pregnancy, mothers in China are discouraged from putting sharp objects on the bed for fear that it will result in the baby being born with a cleft lip or palate. They avoid touching anything with glue or adhesive as it may result in a birthmark. Additionally, since pregnancy is considered a “heating” condition in which there is excessive internal heat in the mother’s body, pregnant women are encouraged to eat “cold food” to balance the yin and yang in her body so that she can prevent fetal miscarriages and malformations. According to the chart, she should keep away from deep fried foods, red meat and garlic and indulge in asparagus, eggplant, cucumbers, and tofu.

 The list of beliefs that are imposed on the pregnant women’s diets drone on. But at its core, it seems like “fetal personhood”– the erasure of female bodies and reduction of women to passive, reproductive machines (180) is still a dominant idea in our society. As such, the child that a mother carries within her is the focal point of her pregnancy. That is the reason why she carries and maintains her body in a certain way with her diet, lifestyle, behavior and is unable to indulge in what she thinks will be good for her baby. There is a sort of maternal altruism here, especially in Southeast Asian countries where the concept of “family” is prioritized. Mothers are expected to give up their lives not only during pregnancy when she is fending for two but also after pregnancy, as she continues to take care of his/her well-being. I would then argue that the fetus is not only autonomous during a woman’s pregnancy as she fights for both their survival but also after the fetus is born as the mother is expected to raise her child in principles that her surrounding community agrees with. These expectations reinforce the hierarchy and continue to place female interests underneath those of the family. 

This feeds into Foucault’s concept of “Governmentality” as articulated in Thorton’s text. Governmentality comes from a disciplinary power which derives power from participation as opposed to a direct, top-down order. Tiger parents, the stereotypical “strict and merciless” Asian parent is a two-way street. 

A lot of people choose to believe that this “strictness” is negative, but few talk about the sacrifices that mothers make to push their children into opportunities, like a top educational institute. Mothers in China feel the need, in part because of what society says, to use harsh, strict and solemn parenting methods to help their children get to the best opportunities in life. 

Sources

Pic 1: https://www.morris-health.com/acupuncture-massage-herbal-FYI.html

Pic 2: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20110131,00.html

[graceang450-blog]

An Analysis of Mulvey and Hook’s texts: Questions about Visual Representation in Cinema

Both Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” and Bell Hook’s “The Oppositional Gaze: Black female spectators” texts brought up a lot of interesting questions about the relationship between films and its spectators for me. Going to the theatre, buying popcorn and watching a movie may seem like such a mundane practice. While we’re immersed in the storyline of the film, we don’t really question what is shown on-screen. Instead, we are carefully designed to laugh, cry or get angry at particular characters and moments, in a grander scheme of things. We’re boxed into a certain perspective/ lens as a spectator, almost like an offscreen character who watches the story unfold from a distance but who is unable to incite change on the film’s narrative.

Mulvey talks about women as “erotic spectacle” (Mulvey, 835), objects of sexual stimulation that plays to and signifies male desire. There is a unified gaze between the spectator and the male characters in the film as, we, the spectators adopt a male gaze as well. As most films structure the main protagonist with whom the spectator can identify with, we are given the power and satisfying sense of omnipotence that the male protagonist possesses. Mulvey’s argument made me think of the angles, perspectives, and circumstances in which we meet our female counterparts in movies.

One example is the blockbuster Transformers (2007) which frames Mikaela, the lead female character played by Megan Fox, as a vulnerable and hyper-sexualized character. In a particular scene of the movie in which Mikaela checks Sam’s engine, the camera captures Mikaela leaning against the hood of the car with her arms outstretched in a seductive way. The camera then pans to her scantily clad outfit and lingers on her bare skin. In this scene, the spectators share the same male gaze as that of our male protagonist in the movie. The quick close frame shots of Mikaela’s body and that of our male protagonist’s facial expressions and reactions lends us his gaze as we obtain pleasure by looking at her. (Mulvey, 840) Because there is only one perspective at looking at Mikaela, we are not only looking in on this story but also participating in it as we objectify her ourselves. In another scene of the movie, Mikaela is also framed as a damsel in distress as she lies flat, palms on the ground with her head up, reacting to what is above her. These scenes speak volume about the portrayal of women in film and their role in entertaining the spectators. It makes me question the percentage of female characters in the film who are depicted and portrayed as alluring in a way beyond her appearance and sexual appeal. I’ve never thought of myself as a proponent of the “’male gaze”, but endorsing movies like the transformers contributes to the validation of the male gaze.

In respond to movies that propagate gender inequality, movie critics have taken a stand to prove their point with various tests that hold movies and their directors accountable for producing unfair stereotypes and perspectives on women. One such example is the Bechdel Test. To pass the Bechdel test, the movie must have two female characters who both have names and who talk to each other about something other than a man. The purpose of the test is to highlight just how male-dominated cinema is. In recent years, a lot more movies have surpassed the Bechdel Test which sounds promising. But with the rise in popularity the Bechdel Test, it also seems to point to a key question: whether this test is the only one we should consider when looking about the representation of women in film. 

Race, in addition to gender, is also a construct to consider when thinking about representation and the ability to “look.” As Hooks mentioned in her text, there are other intersections of “looking” in addition to gender. Gender is not simply one big lump. Under this category, there are intersections of looking such as race, socioeconomic statuses, identity etc so I was happy to find that women in the film industry expressed their opinions and own take on the Bechdel Test. Most notably, New York Times critic Ava DuVernay, developed the DuVerynay Test which requires “African Americans and other minorities to have fully realized their lives than serve as scenery in white stories.” Amongst other discussions of visual representation, these tests serve as a start for dialogue about diversity, representation and the stories that characters in films hold.