Untitled

[saramunoz-mt]

Globalization of Visual Culture

[saramunoz-mt]

Naturalistic Enthymeme

[saramunoz-mt]

Interpellation

When Sturken and Cartwright first describe interpellation as “to be hailed and called in a way in which you recognize yourself to be the person intended by the call” (52), I took it as a form of being called out in way. They relate the feeling to potentially being pulled over by a cop, but what came to my head was a different scenario that you could say is very similar. Imagine students using their cellphones in class when they are not supposed to. It could be several students or just the one, but each are trying to be discrete about their actions. As they try to glance up so as to not draw attention to the device in their laps, their professor is already looking straight ahead at them. Oh no. If the professor were to make a sly announcement to the class along the lines of “Don’t think I can’t see you using your phone” or “Don’t come to me asking for extra credit when I see you using your cell phones,” that one student who caught eye contact with the teacher may think that the professor is calling them out. What the difference between this scenario and the police example in the textbook is that in the police example, sound, images and logic are involved and I believe in my example there lacks sound and images. 

I struggled to think of an image when trying to come up with an example for interpellation because before reading this textbook and on any adventure taken to a museum, I’ve looked at images that I’m trying to get a meaning out of and thought to myself “What does this image do?” or “what does this image mean?” rather than thinking about “what does the image want?” Asking what an image wants and with the help from the Uncle Sam example, my perspective shifted as to how individuals can look at images. 

Rosie the Riveter, another propaganda piece, came to mind after seeing Uncle Sam, because that was something that I, as a female, can identify with, and not to mention how iconic it is. Rather than women having to replace the men because they went off to war, we are now fighting to work alongside these men. Times (exhibition and viewing context, the third element of meaning production) have changed, but equality is still something women around the world are fighting for. It is described in the textbook: “for viewer interpellation by an image or sound to be effective, the viewer-listener must implicitly understand himself or herself to be a member of a social group that shares codes and conventions through which the image/sound becomes meaningful” (53). The social group involving this image is clear. Women in the work force. The social group in a way hasn’t changed very much since World War 2, but the meaning of the image has shifted to fit our current era. 

[saramunoz-mt]

Internet = Junk food?

Are we addicted to our phones?

Most certainly. I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that to some extent you can consider my reliance to my phone an addiction. According to the textbook, you qualify as an internet addict if you spend 40 to 80 hours per week online, with individual sessions as long as 20 hours. Thanks to the “Screen time” setting on iPhones, I’m able to see that last week I spent 29 hours of screen time, so to the textbooks definition I don’t qualify. But, something that I didn’t take account of when looking at my screen time was the amount of time I spend on my laptop and even worse- the time I spend on both my laptop and phone, double the exposure. 

The textbook also expands on how internet usage effects our brains. The study showed a change in the subjects brains when they were exposed to more/less internet. This digital stimulation is similar to that of the drive for food and sex. Which is of no surprise to me. Although somewhat unrelated, today I actually viewed a movie on Netflix called Forks Over Knives. It’s a documentary that shows the benefits of a plant based diet to people’s diet, specifically those that have been diagnosed with a certain illness and how the diet can help reverse it. And after watching this I made a connection to fast food and internet/social media usage. Although at first I thought it was a weird connection, when I think about it, it doesn’t seem that weird because I imagine someone pigging out with a burger and large fries while binge watching a show. 

Anyways, the question is posed “Why do these concentrated foods that are so harmful to us give us so much pleasure?” Dr. Lisle explains that it is because of something called the “Motivational Triad” which is a trio of biological mechanisms that nature has designed into every creature in order to survive and reproduce. The first being pleasure seeking (food and sex) which is what first brought me to relate fast food and the internet, the second, unrelated to my comparison, but in case you were dying to know, is avoiding pain. And lastly, the third is “doing everything with the least amount of effort” which I think is similar to the fraction of selection. The idea of expectation of reward over effort required. You get the gist, I hope. 

Comparing the internet to junk food might suggest I may think the internet is a bad thing, which could totally be debatable, but “everything in moderation” can be applied to both internet usage and eating junk food. 

On another note:

If you’ve noticed the John Mulaney theme so far, I wanted to include part of his special that is kind of relevant to this and if you think it’s not then I hope you at least get a laugh out of it. This is part of the script from John Mulaney: Kid Gorgeous at Radio City, I couldn’t find a clip of the video with this part, but I assure you that it is much funnier watching him perform than just reading it to yourself. 

“Famous people are often rude because they’re used to getting things really quickly. I bet a lot of us are pretty polite. But as soon as we get things quickly, we start to get ruder and ruder. Look at technology, it’s faster than ever and we’re ruder than ever. People walk around on the phone now, “Hello? You still there? Lost him.” And that’s it. No follow-through with that guy. Fifty years ago, if you were on the telephone with your friend and suddenly the line just went dead, that meant your friend was murdered. The phone used to be a big deal. It was a long, polite process. Back in the 1940s, the phone was like a wood box… with a thing on it. I don’t know. It had its own room. You’d go, “That’s the phone’s room!” And it was expensive. You’d wait all week to make your call. “It’s almost Tuesday!” And then you’d take the cup on the string or whatever… There weren’t even numbers. You’d just go, “Hello? Anyone? [yells] Anyone in the world?” Then you’d go, “Operator, ring me Neptune 5-117.” And the operator was a real person that you had to be nice to. She’d be like, “One moment, please. I’m putting wires into a board filled with holes to move the voices around, ’cause it is the ’40s.” And it took like 90 minutes. Now people just drive around screaming at their phones like… -Call home! -“Calling the mobile for Tom.” Not fucking Tom! [imitating Mick Jagger] Not funny! [audience laughing]”

[saramunoz-mt]

Spiral of Silence

of

The spiral of silence model describes the idea that people holding views contrary to those dominant in the media are moved to keep those views to themselves for fear of rejection. 

In essence, this theory describes peoples fear of isolation from the people surrounding them because of their opposing views. To avoid isolation, rather than voicing the opposing view, they keep quiet. This usually happens when the opposing view is in the unpopular view. 

The spiral of silence sparked a thought in my head. In a more general thought, to what degree does this “spiral of theory” expand to? Social media platforms, specifically platforms such as Twitter and Facebook where users are more likely to voice their opinions, contain a vast amount of controversial arguments. But will those opposing to say white supremacy speak out against it in a white supremacy closed group on Facebook? Or a pro-life or pro-choice group?Maybe, maybe not.  In a group where you are the minority, unpopular vote, you may not speak out, even though in another scenario you have the popular opinion. These are situational and subjective cases that people confront in the spiral of silence. These are also rather extreme and currently relevant situations where people believe there is a right or wrong and no in between. 

In a less extreme situation, say you were to tweet that you hated Beyonce and she sucks. *Gasp* The responses received would be nothing short of outrage. 

In another situation, say maybe, there is a town hall meeting about the construction of a new skyscraper or building. But in order to build that new skyscraper, they will have to remove a large amount of green space. Although everyone may agree on the construction of this new building, if a devout environmentalist were to be apart of the meeting, he or her may stand up and express their oppositions. 

Does the spiral of silence theory not apply to them?

Not necessarily. The theory also includes the factor of personal ego involvement. Meaning that regardless of the popular opinion around you, if you have an extremely strong opinion on the matter, then the individual won’t necessarily care about the repercussions of isolation. 

In other cases, similar to the civil rights movement, people with the minority viewpoint will speak up if they feel supported and empowered by the media.

There is another additional premise to the spiral of silence. This includes the idea of a sixth sense known as the “quasi-statistical organ.” In other words, the premise explains that people don’t need to access media, polls, etc., to know what is the minority opinion/view. 

[saramunoz-mt]

Uses and Receptions

The question “do we use the media or does the media use us?” was posed during our class discussion earlier in the week.

Although not particularly relevant to media theory, what comes to mind when thinking about whether or not the media uses us or not leads me to think about targeted advertising.

Relative to our class, yes, we use the media. Isn’t that what social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. was meant for?

On a deeper level, why do we use the media?, i think, is a better question to ask that is related to this chapter.

Why do I use media?

For gratification, satisfaction, entertainment, bored, you name it. What medium will I use though? Easy. Just as the fraction of selection states, “individuals make media and content choices based on expectation of reward and effort required,” and I am one of those individuals. For example, last night the Democratic debate aired. I, being a cheap student and a stereotypical Gen-Z move, don’t watch television. I may own a TV, but there are no wires to connect to any type of basic TV channels. Because of this, I had to go online and find a website that would be streaming the debate, rather than go to a friends or public area that would be showing it. I chose a not so great quality on my screen and constant buffering, instead of getting up and going somewhere because of convenience and lack of effort to satisfy my then current need to watch the debate.

Another reason to use media, as also stated in the book, is the mood management theory. This theory, basically, states we will watch X type of media, for an X type of feeing. Movies, TV shows and music are the ones to come to mind. I took an exam earlier today and my professor chose to play calm, melodic music during the exam. I bet the playlist used was probably titled “Study Jams” or “Test Tunes.” Either way, what he was trying to convey was a calm, quiet environment in the classroom for the students to feel that way. When I drive to work or walk to class in the mornings, I play upbeat music that will get me excited and awake for my day. I’ll watch Curb Your Enthusiasm or Arrested Development whenever I’m in the mood for a good laugh.  

This continuation of a good mood that I’m searching for coincides with hedonistic motivations. I’m choosing content that will maintain and provide the mood that I’m in.  My professor on the other hand may be encouraging eudaimonic motivation when he plays the calmer tunes while taking an exam. He may not be encouraging personal insight or self-reflection, but he is encouraging the contemplation of the subject matter

We use media for satisfaction, and mood changes, which are two very clear elements that can explain why I use media on a day to day basic.

[saramunoz-mt]

The Medium is the Message/Massage

Marshall McLuhans “The Medium is the Message” was a topic that was introduced to me in my introductory Journalism course I took my freshman year. I had completely forgotten about it, and after reading the chapter, the question of whether the medium is the message or not seemed relevant to me. And can been seen as extremely relevant with his type of “The Medium is the Massage” or mass-age, because of the various mediums people get their information, entertainment, etc. from this day in age.

Which brings me to focus on the evolving mediums from McLuhan’s time to ours. Then, it was print which he considered to be “hot” because of the direct one-way connection with that specific medium. With the introduction of television, there was a different connection, which he considered to be “cold” due to the less intense connection when watching TV in a living room with family members and the introduction of advertisements between shows. This coolness could be applied to the radio as well. Each medium introduces a different sense stimuli to the individuals, in other words, there is a different environment introduced when shifting between mediums. 

But now, with the introduction of personal electronic devices (smartphones, hand held gaming devices, laptops) how does that change? Screens are no longer across the room (TV’s), but they are now portable, available to us when we want to use them, and much much closer to our faces. How would McLuhan describe this? Are we back to this medium being cold or is it hot?

I would like to argue that it’s hot. There is a direct, intense connection. People are constantly glued to their phones, they are transported, they lose touch of their surroundings. With advancements in technology people have the ability to analyze and scan videos, rewind or forward. Similar to having to re-read text if there is something you misread, or didn’t understand.

McLuhan also says “the effect of the program is incidental.” Meaning that the medium is what is important, the reason we “log on,” rather than the content being the cause.  There are some truths to this in my opinion, and some aspects that I disagree with.  

It could be argued that content in the many social platforms we use is, in a way, unknown. In class, Ian has mentioned how scrolling to refresh is like gambling. For example, we know that Twitter will have tweets, but we don’t know what the content of the tweets will be about. Usually when we’re bored and we have our phones or personal devices handy we sign in to platforms regardless of the content just to fill in the time.

But, I would like to think that it’s the content that I would be receiving that brings me to download that platform.

[saramunoz-mt]

Children and Adolscents