#visrhet2015

[sarahmay-theblog-blog]

Crayons...they're kind of a big deal. 

While we have come a long way, it is important to remember that the topic of race and racial bias still has strong influence over modern culture. The image above was used as a poster to promote Anti-Bias in schools by crafting the statement that no matter the shade, tint, or hue, it is all “flesh”. This visual representation of their statement is so effective because not only does it clearly support its argument for its intended audience (school children), but it also communicates socially relevant material that can be used in argument today among a much more mature audience. “Drawing” back to Crayola history as well, the color pictured in the middle of poster was originally named “flesh” by their crayon crafters and marketing team. It wasn't until 1962 that the color was rethought, reproduced, and renamed to “peach”, as it is named today. This presents an interesting argument in itself....If the image of the “flesh” colored crayon can still be used in the current conversation of racial bias in our culture, how far are we from time that this crayon controversy originated? What we know is that race is still a relevant topic in need of attention; what we hope is that the children walking down school hallways that hold this poster (and posters like it) will form a new generation of anti-bias and acceptance....in every color. 

http://scottmkaplan.com/ANTI-BIAS-TASK-FORCE

[braydonchase]

One of the great questions that pervades the understanding of cinema is simply this: What is its purpose? There are countless theories that attempt to answer it. Film theorists, like Rudolf Arnheim believed that film is art, in that it shouldn't (and doesn't) represent or replicate real life, whereas André Bazin thought films capture an "objective reality". Roger Ebert had his theories as well, and in a commentary on Dark City, he suggests that film isn't the medium to use when trying to express a logical and intellectual argument. Hit the jump to hear Ebert's thoughts on why cinema is an emotional medium.

^^^^^^^^^^^

Up there is a link to an article about the late Roger Ebert (RIP) and his philosophy about the purpose of films. It reminded me of Benjamin's criticisms and ideas of film. 

Although I usually agree with Ebert's reviews of movies, I'm gonna have to disagree with the point that he made here. He believes that films are not a place for "political" or "philosophical" arguments, but the ideal medium for those are "printed works." He backs it up by saying "When we watch a film, the director is essentially standing behind us and saying, 'Look here,' and 'Look there,' 'Hear this,' and 'Hear that,' and 'Feel this,' and 'Feel the way I want you to feel.'" But, Mr Ebert, isn't that exactly what the author of a printed work does? The author presents you with specific points that they want you to read and understand, and they leave out things that they do not want you to read or think about. In my opinion there is just as much deliberation in the making of a film and in the making of a printed work. Film is arguably more powerful of a tool for arguments, since you can utilize the power of words along with the power of visuals and sounds. You can read all the articles you want about how bad drugs are for you, but I swear the most powerful anti-drug message you can get is through watching Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream." And that is just one example of a powerful argument done through film. 

k done ranting 

[katiegilroy04-blog]

Gatekeeping

Gatekeeping: Society's version of saying "Could you not?"

[braydonchase]

So yeah I have an unhealthy love for coca-cola. 

Also, I think their advertising and marketing strategies are really smart and utilize the appeal of friendship and togetherness to sell more of their product. In the Berger readings, he talked about how images from the past (oil paintings) relate to modern publicity images. This is why I chose to juxtapose an older coke ad with the newer one that we're all probably very familiar with. Both ads create a sort of friendship and bond that are achieved through drinking coke; they also both seem to be inviting you, the viewer, to join in on the fun and togetherness by buying coke. The first ad does this by using images of young faces that seem welcoming and inviting. The second does this by the text it displays: more of a written invitation to the coke party (the DRINK ok not the snorty coke). Because the older ad shows young people, it seems to be mainly focusing on a younger audience to persuade them to buy coke, while the newer ad appeals to a wider audience by not showing the actual people enjoying the soda. I do believe that these ads are very effective and persuasive because it makes viewers seem like they're included in some inner circle of people who all share a common love for coca-cola. 

pictures:

Older one

Newer one