Yeah shocking right?
This once again wasn't the main point of the lecture (im starting to think i should re think the purpose of this blog ... is it to reiterate what todays lecture was about? or the small irrelevant bits i found interesting ?)
Anyway, i found it interesting and shocking, i mean, for the next week im going to be constantly looking at images and wonder how many images have i NOT seen on a day to day basis.
i suppose these images could also include billboards or advertisements we just dont take in.
No matter how you look at these stats, you have to wonder, is our entire generation just dulled so much by media we have a serious case of global selective vision ?
Take a wee peek here before you continue
Did you see it? no? look again..... NOW YOU SEE MY SHOCK.
I've researched a few of these selective tests, but this is the most famous and for good reason. its probably the most witty and shocking.
So this made me serious question the entire modern world and its attention capabilities.
We only look for what we've been told to look for. Which made me wonder all day what else do i not see. and then i realize how selective my sight really is, browsing the internet for example, the sheer amount of internet ads on the side of the screen are just blatantly ignored, yet our subconscious still gets filled with this junk. maybe this is why we are so dulled. we ignore everything because there is so much junk.
It actually kind of reminds me of Wall-e i know, such a cliche example, but its what it reminds me of.
If you have seen Wall-e you know the humans are basically driven and catered for by machines and are so reliant on the technology they are just mindless drones following the herd and feeding off advertisements.
-This has a relevance to issues and visual cultures, it's just taking me a while to get to my point-
So a bit like Wall-e everything has to be big shiny and in your face for us to actually soak it in as one of our 23 'seen' images out of the rest.
especially if you are in a highly populated area, for example im currently sitting in my living room in my flat, i take a break to wonder a little more about visual culture and just realized there's a car insurance billboard VERY visible from my window, ive lived here half a year now and i have never once actually acknowledged there's a billboard outside my flat. So im clearly no different from the average selective viewer.
Remember i said a while ago i'd come back to semiotics? well here we go, i'll give you all the same 2nd year english class recap i got.
Semiotics, is a study of language, in this case the visual language, and our interpretations of the language.
During todays lecture we discussed advertisements, one of which was a cleaning detergent ad, and yes i know you are probably sick of these examples, but this one is my own take on what actually was discussed.
The advert was quite basic, it was your usual domestic cleaning and im sure appealed to the common household cleaner, however as a modern twist it wasnt a woman.... yeah, it was a guy.
So this is what we discussed, what was the advert trying to say? what was its signs and language.
The main ones werent actually look heres our brand, it cleans your clothes, no... this ad made a bit more of a less subtle point.
Many theorys bounced about, was the reason it was a man was it trying to look edgier? was it implying not just women clean? was it trying to appeal to men ? after all this is the 21st century, even these single men need to learn how to clean their clothes.... but to me (yeah my opinion time) i actually took an entire different view from the rest of the group.
Now, please keep in mind this advert is generally aimed at women, and yes some may be aimed at men, but that would basically mean it would need to be less sparkly and would require no gleaming pink in the background....So of course since it had these aspects i figured, its still aimed toward women.
Now what would a womens interpretation of this advert? so i imagined myself a housewife, alone home, husband pulls zero weight etc the usual stereotype.
Then i realized, this isnt a rough average man, this was a pretty boy, who made a point to take his white shirt off and do the cleaning.
can you see where my interpretations going ?
My interpretation ISN'T this advert is aimed at do it yourself 21st century men, this is aimed at hopeful 21st century women, to sum the message i gathered
'buy this product and a hot twenty something with abs of steal and a boy next door smile, will magically appear and strip in front of you, WHILST doing the household chores your man wont' .... am i wrong?
after all thats the fun of semiotics, its all own to what YOU personally took from the sign, and i picked up on signs that appealed to not rough men, but the usual demographic in of household cleaning.
So its all what YOU see, and thats the creators job, they have to get there point across without actually writing it down in front of you, thats advertising.
you have to look for the sign!
you have to deconstruct to reconstruct.... ie. you have to take your image apart and create your version of it.
Which brings me to a very well known artist, Hockney.
I've shown an example below of one of his reconstructed images.
Hockney is painter photographer and apparently a sneaky git.
http://www.hockneypictures.com/images/3-works/3-photos/pearblossom.jpg
Look at the image again, still the same ?
Its a seemingly normal photo, a road, some road signs etc, but its many photos creating the one photo, Hockney is quite well known for this technique.
he deconstructs to reconstruct. and thats what modern people have to do with basically everything, you have to guess the meaning, guess the brand, guess the adverts overall purpose. and believe me, a bit like the cleaning detergent, some people like me will get a completely wrong interpretation than the majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment