Anthropology 295: Anthropology of Media

The whole concept of sounds as they shape our experience of the world is endlessly fascinating to me. Sound as an auditory experience, sound as movement, sound as feeling - all are so deeply connected to one another that the majority of us fail to realize it until one occurs without the other, such as an explosion without tremors. Reading through the previous posts, something mentioned in one entry about language as sound jogged my memory. I don't know if others have experienced learning a language the way that I have, but I began to think about total language immersion. The previous post that I refer to spoke of attempting to listen to a conversation without comprehension. I find that hard to do with conversations being held in english - it's like a retroactive learning process. Being completely immersed in a language that one is not fluent in or has no experience with makes one, through sheer necessity, pay very close attention to sound as that is all that one has to focus on. The sounds have yet to form autonomous groupings and meanings and so simply blend into one another. Learning a language, really, has little to do with actual words. Obviously words and choice of words are important, but more important is the tone, the sound with which they are spoken. And sounds and their meaning vary by language, by culture. Something said in one tone may be offensive to some and not to others. Parents are always coaching their children on tone (at least mine were). Each language has its own cadence and nuances, things that one cannot learn through the memorization of words. In a way, I feel that being constantly bombarded by the media and all of its sound in the way that we are has played a significant role in the loss of our awareness of the importance of sound and how, in a variety of ways, it is profoundly central to the way in which we conceptualize of and relate to our world and others in it.

I've been reading bits and pieces of Naomi Klien's book NO LOGO recently. The book, an anti-corporate manifesto that critically examines Western consumer culture and media, provides some incredibly interesting insights into mainstream media as well as alternative media. One such form of alternative media is culture jamming, "the practice of parodying advertisements and hijacking billboards in order to drastically alter their messages." In this way, culture jammers reappropriate public spaces overrun with advertisements through highly contextualized critiques. Reappropriation, then, is seen as a means to rearm consumer's consciousness by forcing passersby to more critically examine the advertising messages that populate their daily realities. Additionally, by slightly changing advertisers messaging (i.e.-changing cigarette ads for Virginia Slims to Virginia Slimes) jammers cost advertisers millions of dollars while casually deconstructing advertisements in such a way that, "the superior strength of the Haves become thier own undoing." In other words, corporate power and influence symbolized by advertisements is subtly subverted in a few minutes by making seemingly simple alterations to advertisements.
Culture jamming, then, is a means by which individuals can reassert their agency over public spaces that have been commodified by corporations. In my mind, this power to create new cultural meanings out of ingrained corporate messaging is incredibly important as it allows for more pluralistic dialogue in which messages and their associated meanings are negotiated and altered by the viewer. In turn, this suggests that even in the midst of highly coercive media environments created by corporations and maintained by anti-vandalism laws created by the government, resistance is not only possible, but necessary.

In class on Thursday before our "sound tour" of campus, we discussed the uses or feelings associated with silence versus sound within our own lives. Whereas the Kaluli of Papua New Guinea use certain sounds as metaphor to express feelings and emphasis during speech, visual images and sights are more frequently used in our everyday lives rather than the symbol of sound. However, we all agreed that we are "consciously manipulating ourselves through sound" everyday. This, I believe, is most prominent through the use of iPods at every free moment on the way to class, in the library or on the bus. As we saw sitting outside of Williams Hall, many people put on their iPods as soon as they step outside and this is where that conscious manipulation occurs. Depending on what someone is doing, where they are going or how they are feeling, their iPod choices reflect a certain mindset that they want to achieve. Upbeat songs may be purposefully used to motivate someone to walk to class or be in a better mood. Other sounds are played to cause relaxation or to signify a time to party. These types of sounds/songs found on the iPod are designated for certain moods, time of day and activites. This is certainly a mechanism to control and manipulate one's mood through sound, which becomes an important and integral part of our sound culture, just as birds and voices of the rainforest are for the Kaluli.

An interesting bit of news caught my attention last week. CNN reported an image of an old barrack used by the United States military in Coronado, CA which is shaped like a swastika. More importantly, the person who came across this aerial image used Google Earth. I want to comment the importance of this program in our culture; it seems that more and more news outlets are utilizing it and it is regarded as a "go to source" by weather forecasters as well as newscasters. The programs in itself is a form of media, and I find it interesting that other forms of media (i.e. news channels) place such a heavy emphasis on it. You may have heard about this already and while I meant to make a post about it last week, I needed to use the program and see for myself. Rather than linking you the image on someone else's web page, here is a link that I "ganked" directly from the Google Earth program.

http://picasaweb.google.com/dominick.a.villano/ANTH295/photo#5116473396718643922

After listening the podcasts in class today, I was surprised that I didn't find myself aching for a visual element. Although I listen to music a lot of the time, I hardly ever really just sit and focus on the sounds around me. I know they're there, and in their absence I feel 'weird,' but somehow tuning into them to precisely made me realize how close they are to all of us. These are the sounds of our lives. Simply put and absolutely true.
It's interesting to contrast these sounds with the ones we heard in class before we start our Sound Journey last Thursday. To me, those sounds were distracting because they were so out of the ordinary and I couldn't help but to tune into them. But these are just the equivalent of what we did with this project to someone else... Anywho. I remember talking about "the sound of silence" and how it was uncomfortable to some. I wanted to sort of expand on what we touched on and add some thoughts -- I am uncomfomfortable with silence (I think) because it seems unnatural. When I'm working, I NEED music or I will never focus. Not ever. And it's not even that I'm necessarily listening to what the music is saying or anything, it's just a background that grounds me... if that makes sense. I don't know. It's hard to pinpoint exactly the problem with silence... maybe it's the fact that in the silence we become accutely aware of the smallest sounds... even our breathing becomes overwhelmingly loud. Stressful. Bad. Music is a good solution. Real good.

Since we were looking at the human element ad in class, I thought this would be an interesting addition too. I TA for Introduction to Globalization and this was one of the first ads Jonah made the class look at.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BH_Kzicf84c

Also... check out the rest of their ads at yourpointofview.com

Once you're done watching the ad....

According to HSBC's website:
We at HSBC, the world's local bank, strongly believe in the potential of difference.
In a world of increasing sameness, we believe it's important to value different points of view and there should be somewhere everyone can air these views and see the views of others

I'd love to start a discussion on what persuasive techniques are used in this ad, and what do people truly think of it? I believe their ad campaigns are incredibly amusing and clever, but in terms of media use, do you all feel that they are success in achieving HSBC's goals?

I first saw Dow’s “human element” commercial while watching the Planet Earth series on the Discovery Channel. It played at just about every commercial break along with a few other ads that raised my suspicion. These ads were stylistically similar: landscape shots of mountains and lakes, very naturalistic and very few images of man made things. Another similarity was observed by my girlfriend, an environmental studies major, that the companies behind these commercials were all heavy polluters. Aside from Dow they included General Electric and Exxon. The absolute disconnect between these companies and respect for nature is incredibly transparent and I felt almost insulted that this connection was trying to be made. I later saw a similarly styled ad, however this one was for the Audubon Society, which made a lot more sense. After my anger of these ads subsided I began to respect the thought that went into them. First of all they are beautifully made commercials. Secondly they were first aired, at least I saw them first, during Planet Earth, a very popular series that the ads attempted to stylistically duplicate. Lastly I realized that falsely connecting Dow, Exxon and GE to environmental health is not at all a bad technique. These companies have obvious image issues when it comes to polluting and many of the products they make are themselves pollutants. The only option they have is to lie big and hope that someone believes them. This technique immediately brings to mind Fox News who, while being extremely slanted, use the slogan “Fair and Balanced”. As transparent as this technique is, it does work if not solely on the subconscious level. It might have angered me but I’m sure that it had an positive effect on people who may not be aware of Agent Orange or the Exxon-Valdez.

Well, it's kind of embarassing that I'm just now entering my first post, but I've had some trouble (and maybe a little laziness too) in signing in. I have a few different issues I want to address and then I'll get to responding to some of the very interesting other posts.

The first entry I ever wanted to make for this class was back in the day when we were reading Coercion. There was a particular part of the book that made me wonder, and while it was a small part of the book, I thought it was a good starting point in beginning to think about the deeper message that we are trying to get from studying media in anthropology.

On page 102, Rushkoff recalls a football game he attended once in which Outback Steakhouse had its brand displayed on the back of the foam hands so that whenever the favored team "sacked" the offending quarterback, these foam hands were thrust into the air, thus revealing the Outback logo every time.

Rushkoff mentions how Joe, the grandfather he is sitting next to, states that he wants a nice sirloin steak after the game. He says, "When Joe tells me (this), I can't help but sarcastically suggest he head over to Outback. He doesn't seem to get the joke."

This little bit immediately targeted upon something I had been wondering since the first class. We study how commercials and radios and newspapers create subliminal messages or even construct things subliminally (like Gap's giant counters upon which we are supposed to feel comfortable placing obscene amounts of items - also mentioned in Rushkoff's book). I understand how the advertising world works, but I wonder how much of it is really effective. And do I speak for the general population, or am I a special case? Or, on the other hand, maybe I'm in denial and think that I'm not brainwashed by the media when in fact, I am. All I'm saying is, when I'm at the deli picking out a drink, I grab what I know tastes good to me, not what I recently saw a commercial for. So on what scale is this brainwashing actually occurring? (Because I am in no way denying that the brainwashing does not exist!)

After reading the first few chapters of the National Geographic book and then watching Rob Gordon's presentation I began to think more about photographs and how they are vary rarely random and without some sort of message. When I look around my room at photographs I realize that the location, the people, and their actions in the photograph were for the most part all thought out and intentionally put into place. With the exception of unaltered nature pictures, I'm not sure if a realistic picture could really exist. One of my favorite statements to question is, "wow that's so beautiful, it looks like a postcard/picture." Even though the scene may be similar to a postcard, it is the natural scene that is beautiful, and in reality no postcard or picture can ever truly convey a natural scenario. Or at least that is my opinion. Capturing moments in a photograph is an amazing technology which I think we are lucky to have, but sometimes cameras seem to skew reality. An unhappy family can take a beautiful family portrait, leaving viewers to believe that the family should be in television show. Yes, sometimes pictures can do an excellent job at conveying someone's emotion at a specific moment, but its when falsified pictures appear.... that I begin to question the technology. Then again, how do you really know whether the picture is previously planned or natural, a caption perhaps?

I first of all just wanted to say how impressed I was by all of the groups' podcast projects. I found myself talking about them to my other friends. Bravo. Neat-o. I am looking forward to seeing all the video projects next week...
Gordon's talk was interesting on Thursday. I have had him for two classes and he always mentions the dogs. Finally a bit more insight into his mad genius...ha. One of the more general points of his lecture, and of this section of the course I assume, is that it is important to think about how we read images. Also interesting was his point that once you notice something somewhere,for example dogs in colonial Namibian photographs, you will see that thing everywhere. Will we sometimes only see something if we are looking for it? His reference to peripheral vision being sharper than focused "forward"(?) vision was also interesting. Is that so? Can we notice more from quick sideglances? Are we often missing something important in a recorded image by concentrating too hard? I think so. How do we learn how to look at or read photographs? Too many questions. Any insight? Any insight in sight? Ha.

Doing the podcast project was probably one of the coolest activities I've ever been assigned to do for a class. Being able to cut out all the bullshit and put a good background beat to different people's opinions really proved to be effective. I think that podcasts could really be a useful way of learning about various subjects and should be used more often.

I think that the whole concept of listening is interesting to look at. While I was listening to the rest of the group podcasts, I found that my eyes were going around the room looking for something to focus on. I had a hard time concentrating on the words without any visual stimulation to go along with it. At some points I even closed my eyes, which definitely allowed me to focus more on the words. Have I been so conditioned by my culture to need visual stimulus or am I just severely A.D.D? It was kind of nice just to hear sound and not be distracted by any visuals. This is why I love listening to the news on the radio...especially news you can trust, like NPR. Once you start watching Fox news or CNN, there is way too much happening on the screen. You have the blonde bombshell newscaster who cares more about her hair than the news, the little text going across the bottom of the screen, the Dow Jones numbers, the weather....I'm surprised there isn't a little box for your horiscope. It's just way too distracting.

I got a call from my dad this weekend telling me there was an article about anthropology and the war on the front page of The New York Times. I love how my parents will always tell me when they read something about anthropology…wow it really is useful for something! I’m sure other anthropology majors can relate. When someone asks you what your major is, “anthropology” usually gets the same questions. Once a woman asked me if I have ever been on any digs…and another time at the laundromat I was asked if it was the study of bugs….oh yes. But anyways…this article really was interesting. It is from Friday, October 5th if anyone is interested, and it is called “Army Enlists Anthropology in War Zones”. We have talked about how the military and CIA have misused anthropology in counterinsurgency and certain wars, such as Vietnam. So they are trying it again in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thought it was interesting that many anthropologists are starting an online petition to boycott these teams of anthropologists in Army units. Many of them are scared that anthropology is being militarized and these anthropologists might be collecting intelligence for the military. But if these tactics are used in a positive way I believe it could be very beneficial. These anthropologists can offer fresh insight and help the soldiers to see the situations from the local perspectives. Although there is much controversy surrounding this issue, and it has been termed by some “armed social work”, I believe if used right, this could possibly decrease military conflict. It is hard to see an end to these wars when there is a continuous battle to establish a functioning government. I believe that other alternatives, such as this must be explored. Anything can always be exploited, but it seems positive to try something that steers away from armed conflict and allows the soldiers to spend more time focusing on other more important issues at hand, such as protecting the local populations.

I started to prepare a blog entry about Rob Gordon’s lecture, but apparently I never actually posted it…..so here it is…I really enjoyed Rob Gordon’s lecture about dogs. His theories about the use of dogs in Colonial photography were very intriguing. The use of visual metaphors implicated that there was a conscious desire to utilize dogs to represent various traits about human nature. There was the “top dog”, where the dog was above all of the humans in the picture. This “top dog” reflected that colonialism was powerful and was taking control of the savagery pervading the given territory, namely Africa in this case. I must say that I was most disturbed by the image of the dog suckling the Black African woman’s breast alongside her baby. Rob Gordon explained that the caption originally accompanying the picture read something like, “The woman’s milk was the only source of protein for the dog.” Even so, I am still disturbed by that visual image. Which brings up the interesting point that visual imagery has a stronger affect than the supporting “facts” that document what is occurring in the image. Another powerful use of visual metaphor was to photograph the white colonizers sitting at tables or standing upright, while the black Africans were on ground level alongside the dogs. The black Africans were on the same sub-human, animalistic level as the dogs. Living in liberal Burlington, VT, this way of thinking is both shocking and makes me sick to my stomach. I greatly appreciate Rob Gordon’s efforts to bring light to a majorly glossed over and ignored part of Colonial history. I would greatly appreciate any other reactions or thoughts on the matter.I started to prepare a blog entry about Rob Gordon’s lecture, but apparently I never actually posted it…..so here it is…I really enjoyed Rob Gordon’s lecture about dogs. His theories about the use of dogs in Colonial photography were very intriguing. The use of visual metaphors implicated that there was a conscious desire to utilize dogs to represent various traits about human nature. There was the “top dog”, where the dog was above all of the humans in the picture. This “top dog” reflected that colonialism was powerful and was taking control of the savagery pervading the given territory, namely Africa in this case. I must say that I was most disturbed by the image of the dog suckling the Black African woman’s breast alongside her baby. Rob Gordon explained that the caption originally accompanying the picture read something like, “The woman’s milk was the only source of protein for the dog.” Even so, I am still disturbed by that visual image. Which brings up the interesting point that visual imagery has a stronger affect than the supporting “facts” that document what is occurring in the image. Another powerful use of visual metaphor was to photograph the white colonizers sitting at tables or standing upright, while the black Africans were on ground level alongside the dogs. The black Africans were on the same sub-human, animalistic level as the dogs. Living in liberal Burlington, VT, this way of thinking is both shocking and makes me sick to my stomach. I greatly appreciate Rob Gordon’s efforts to bring light to a majorly glossed over and ignored part of Colonial history. I would greatly appreciate any other reactions or thoughts on the matter.

Recently, I've seen more and more PSA's for internet safety directed towards children and teens. Comcast cable and the U.S. Department of Justice are the two players leading this movement. The PSA's typically depict the dangers of posting images and personal information on networking websites like Facebook and MySpace, and while it can be argued if these sites fit the traditional definition of media, both are important facets of our culture. These sites allow people to communicate and network, ultimately allowing for a spread of information and on-line digital media. Concern for dangerous online activity is heighten with the recent news of a U.S. federal prosecutor who committed suicide after being charged with having sex with a 5-year-old girl. Michigan authorities set up an online chat" sting to catch J. D. Roy Atchison. Could it be that the same forms of technology that parents are protecting their children from, can be used with positive intentions to protect them?

Links to both PSA's and N.Y. Times story:
http://www.pointsmartclicksafe.org/text/videos/m4v/ncta_pp.m4v
http://tcs.cybertipline.com/psa/BulletinBoard_60.mov

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/us/06suicide.html

So, it would seem that I'm not alone in thinking that the podcasts were completely awesome. And they were. Everyone did a REALLY good job and I was really impressed with some of the editing techniques that I heard... especially people who added music and other effects... whoa. I didn't even know how on earth do that. And it's probably good. Because then I would have gotten real stressed out. But anywho - the podcasts were fun. I didn't think that I would enjoy editing them because the program was confusing to LOOK at (we used Audacity... ugh...), but after an hour or so my group got into the swing of it and it was fun. Then, today, we shot the film for Thursday's project. If you haven't shot your film yet and you're borrowing from the library - you need to buy a tape. We didn't know this. We had to go to the bookstore. And we also had to ask my friend Nick why nothing was working. His reply, "It's empty," made me feel... not so bright. MOVING ALONG - I'm really into this whole audio/video project and especially so after editing my group's film today. It was time-consuming, but definitely interesting. And the TechCats are Gods. Complete Gods.
On another note, I wanted to quickly mention Rob Gordon's lecture on Thursday. First of all, obviously LOVE Rob Gordon and think he is amazing, but I wanted to comment on how interesting I thought his findings were. It just goes to show how deeply anthropology can make us think and how it can further all of our understandings.

Now that we have been doing film and audio projects it is making me appreciate the efforts that others have put in in the media field. That said, those of you who have any inclination to watch obscure, indie films can check out the Vermont Film Festival going on all around Burlington. Most of us being Anthropology majors, I can assume we all have a general interest in human obscurities turned into art! Not in a people in a cage kind of way, but in an artsy film kind of way. Also, I am excited about the film showing next Monday in Williams 301 called I Always do my Collars First- it's a film about ironing. I figure with a topic so obscure it absolutely must be good. For more info about the Vermont Film Festival you can go to vtiff.org.

Although I am still skeptical of the overly-critical nature in which Lutz and Collins pick apart National Geographic, it has made me look at the magazine in a much different light.
We have a couple of the magazines lying around our house and in the past couple of days I have picked them up and flipped through. The one sitting next to me right now has a super-magnified mosquito on the front and reads "MALARIA: Stopping a Global Killer." The malaria story is called BEDLAM IN THE BLOOD: MALARIA. It includes many dire, eerie photos of people and countries effected by Malaria. Inside this issue there is a story about an Ice Age man whose intact body was found recently. A hilighted red caption reads: "We know that the Iceman was murdered, and died very quickly, in the same rocky hollow where his body was found." It struck me as interesting that they would turn the death of a 5,300 year-old man into a sensationalist murder story. Hmm. Then, the next story is about birds. Innocent enough, right? It is titled Feathers of Seduction: For New Guinea's birds of paradise, attracting a mate is a performing art.
So Lutz and Collins have gotten me to think critically in my reading of National Geographic. But I am still on the fence as to whether the specific National Geographic packaging of world stories, cultures, events, beauty, curiosities, findings is necessarily a bad thing. There is one passage at the beginning of the book that talks about how beautifully the photos are shot like it's a bad thing. I find that the authors leave National Geographic no way out. Time and time again while reading this book the question came to mind, "How would they have it be?" They are being critical of everything about the magazine, but they don't seem to lay out a way in which National Geographic could do things better. Is their feeling that this magazine should not exist?
I would be interested to hear anybody else's thoughts on the book, or thoughts on my thoughts.

The documentary The Couple In The Cage, by Guillermo Gomez Peña and Coco Fusco, was a disturbing reality check of how Americans view Indigenous populations. The man and woman in the cage were really actors who were making a satire about indigenous people, spending time in cages in museums and at parties putting themselves on display. I was shocked that so many people actually thought that it was alright for human beings to be put on display like that. There was little objection to the fact that humans were being placed in a cage, like animals, to be looked at and observed. The level of dehumanization was very disturbing, however some individuals did react strongly against this type of apparently negative treatment of indigenous people. Many observers of the couple in the cage wanted to have pictures taken with these “savages”. They would even pay money to have the couple tell stories in their native language. The most hilarious thing that people would pay to do was feeding bananas to the natives as if they really were caged animals at the petting zoo. Are these people for real? Are we really that sick and demented that we feel it is acceptable to treat human beings in this way??!!

After reading Sprague's article on the Yoruba's I was absolutely amazed by the underlying symbolism placed on every photograph taken by Yoruba photographers. If I had not read the article and simply observed the pictures within the article I probably would have admired the pictures, but I wouldn't have looked at them with the same amount of enthusiasm. What is most bewildering to me is how a seemingly underdeveloped tribe could produce photographs that encompassed not only professional positioning and stories, but also intricate technological methods. My favorite example of their use of technology was the photographers ability to create people who did not exist (twins). What might be the most interesting aspect about the Yoruba photography is that there is a universal code of meaning. Although I enjoy looking at a picture and pondering over the deeper meaning, I also feel as though it would be influential to have a code which everyone would be able to understand. What I'm left here thinking about is whether a code would take away from the artistic aspect of the photographs, or if it would make the photographs have an even deeper meaning than a photograph that may potentially be impossible to decipher. Referring back to National Geographic book, I'd say that there are codes for every photograph, but I think the code is one that is specifically for the photographer. Most photographers have a forte and thus their photographs are often easy to identify. In a way this ties into the Yoruba's means of photography, with the difference being that, we, the viewers, may never understand the code. And that is perhaps why National Geographic is so deceiving.

I would have to agree with the last blog in that the book, “Reading National Geographic” has made me look at the magazine more critically. I would also agree with the fact that little alternatives or changes that would make things “better” have not been provided, in representation and so on. However, growing up in a home that constantly had an issue of the magazine on the coffee table I had never really thought of the way people and cultures are represented. The National Geographic Society is a “powerful institution” the author states, one that has full reign in determining what and how people, places, and so on are represented in the magazine. The combination of both scholarship and entertainment makes the magazine somewhat unique in that it offers “new” information to the public, at the same time capturing our eyes with beautiful pictures of far away lands and people. Chapter two addresses the representation of third world countries in the magazine, both as “simple, childlike, and friendly.” Before reading the book I hadn’t really thought of this perspective, but looking back I can think of some instances. It was also interesting to learn that no coverage of the Soviet Union occurred for approximately 15 years, offering an obvious example that the magazine avoids conflict. On the other hand, conflict has been presently more recently, for example wars within developing nations.
The book’s detail of how pictures are produced, edited, and chosen was quite enlightening. I had no idea that so much went into this process, from initiating a story, to actually taking a photo, to selecting the picture(s), to “the art of juxtaposition”, and lastly printing and marketing. It’s a complicated and well thought out process that can take lots of time. As so far this book has made me a more critical reader and observer of the magazine’s structure, decisions making and so on.

Ok everyone, I apologize, but I'm about to bring an onslaught of blog entries in the next few days in order to catch up. A lot of these are older too, as they've been sitting in my notebook for a few weeks now.......so bear with me.

In the article "Rambo's Wife Saves the Day," I had various responses to what the author was trying to say. While I find his research with the villagers in Gapun to be very interesting, I wish I could further discuss with him some of the ideas he threw out.

For one thing, he states that in this day and age, text is presented and analyzed as a "closed system" - in other words, "an entity bounded by space and time which actively guides and structures interpretation and therefore is subject to misinterpretation." I find this statement to be entirely true in the sense that we as an audience are at our own will when it comes to how we perceive a text or visual such as a movie. There is the whole other discourse which opposes this statement - that we're brainwashed, that everything is intentionally subliminal, etc. Let's put that aside for a moment though, and discuss the notion of public material in general: paintings, music, movies, books, poems, etc. The above quote mentions that everything is subject to misinterpretation but isn't the point of "art" that the viewer experiences the piece in his or her own way? When it comes to art, some things are more obvious than others in intention - if the artist (director, musician, whatever) wants the interpretation to be obvious, then he or she makes it obvious.

In the above statement, the author makes misinterpretation sound like a fault, when in reality, I think that is the way that artistic and open material is supposed to be perceived.

Another thing that struck me with this article was the idea behind the lack of technological knowledge that the Gapun villagers had. In recalling films they saw such as that of Rambo or of the devil, one villager said, "Moving pictures don't lie. THings are there and they photograph them." Here, in developed society, we know that that's not true. Technology today can visually re-create history. But one wonders: the Gapun villagers can be "brainwashed" by what they see on film because they are not aware of the possibilities in twisting visual images. Here in America, though, we ARE aware of technological possibilities and yet somehow, the media still seems to have brain control over the country. Does this mean that the media is not actually in physical control but rather, that we want it to be in control?

The day after we read the article "Rambo's Wife Saves the Day," we had a class discussion on the relationship between media and culture. Luis mentione the word "embedded" and we discussed the idea that culture is embedded in media, but media is also embedded in culture. The notion was that while it is a two-way relationship, the media is heavily dependent on cultural functions. This leads me to wonder, however, how much our culture depends on our media? I think about other countries and what aspects of those places defines their culture when viewed from an outsider's perspective. For example, when I think of India, stereotypes involve arranged marriages, saris, turbans, hinduism, and more. These are aspects of age-old traditions and are passed down from generation to generation.

So, I wonder: what do people think of when they think of America? I imagine that people from other cultures either picture Los Angeles: fast cars, palm trees, beaches, etc. Or maybe they picture New York City: big buildings, business suits, millions of taxi cabs. These are not aspects of age-old traditions or cultural values that get passed down from generation to generation. The stereotypes of our own country's culture may very well rely on developing technology: iPods, cell phones, fancy cars, high-tech cameras, etc.

During this same class discussion, someone mentioned that part of the definition of media is as a cultural system that helps construct our reality. This definition means that our culture or our reality is only the result of what the media puts out in the public. How much of that notion is really true though? If we look at news media vs. fictional media such as films and books, one is supposed to portray what is really there while the other puts a creative twist on how things could/should be. Yet, movies like "Bowling for Columbine" reveal that the media selects what it actually portrays and therefore constructs our perception of true events. Is this how we define our culture though? By what we see on the 6 o'clock news? How much of your day exists outside the media? Hanging out with friends, taking notes in class, getting dressed, eating, doing laundry, etc. WHen you're outside the house, how often do you see subliminal advertisements that alter how you pick and choose things later in life? While I do agree that media sneaks shots in our everyday lifestyle, I struggle with the concept that the media should shape everything that we do that defines us as a culture.

One day, we as a class were trying to come up with definitions of "media." The answers ranged from short and straight definitions to broader and more general definitions. In a society like ours, where technology is highly prevalent and even dominant, media is not a simple concept which one can define quickly. Rather, our society has a whole entire discourse on media which is highly unclear and mostly controversial and debateable. This only confirms that media plays a large role in our society and is not a straightforward tool in accessing the broader scene. The dictionary, however, seems to find the the definition of media to be quick simple.

"The main means of mass communication (esp. newspapers and broadcasting) regarded collectively."

The fact that this definition includes the idea that all media is "regarded collectively" is pretty key in my opinion. The relationship between society and media is society vs. media. But the people behind the media are members of the society as well. Society consists of the general masses who submit to the "brainwashing" of the media, and it also consists of people like Rushkoff who actively do research to reveal the evil side of media. So really, which part of society is collectively regarding the media?

After Thursdays class, I decided to do a little bit of digging around on the website that Luis showed us, “bagnewsnotes.com”. I found this site to be very enlightening and stimulating, as well as extremely relevant to our media studies class. This website does an excellent job of explaining in fairly simple terms how the media is crafted in order to convey the desired message and to essentially, manipulate the audience. This blog deals mostly with political images and how they are used to sway the political climate of America. One extremely telling image that was recently posted on this site is the cover of a magazine called “Radar” and it depicts Giuliani, Hillary, and Obama scantily clad in what appears to be a hedonistic orgy of sorts. Giuliani is whispering sweet nothings into Hill’s ear, while Obama is lounging under them, completely unaware of what is transpiring over his head. This image, which is a satire on a “Vanity Fair” cover that ran a while back, has the caption “who would Jesus vote for?” Wow! This image is so dense, so full of multiple layers and meanings, that it must be examined closer.
The first thing that comes to mind is the physical manifestation of this image. Hillary and Giuliani seem to be in cahoots with each other, full of confidence, while Obama seems to be ineffective, unaware, and altogether dim. Hillary and Giuliani, while engaging in contact with each other, both seem independent, powerful, and intelligent. Rudy’s power and strength comes from the fact that he is being aggressive and handling his issues head on, like a man. Hillary, while listening to Rudy’s whispers, seems to be her own woman, exuding confidence and power with her little smirk. This image seems to be saying that Rudy and Hill are, or should be, the top candidate of each of their parties. Whether this is a subconscious message or out in the open is open to debate, yet this image has a power that is derived simply from its arrangement. It is amazing to me how the physical arrangement of an image can have such an immense effect on the overall meaning of the picture, and this one image, as well as this blog website does a great job at illuminating these subtle mechanisms and the tactics behind them.

To talk more about the National Geographic book, I think it is very admirable of the magazine to allow these writers to really “dig in” to their business. In times where many corporations and institutions seem to be hiding things, it is a nice relief to see some open doors. Clearly the members of N.G. realized that not everything would be seen in a positive light. But as the authors suggested, this power could be called “the confidence of class”, the magazine knowing that it already has a secured place in our culture. I think this is interesting seeing as National Geographic has become one of the most powerful shapers of how we see other cultures. It secures its respect from everything, including the type of paper used in the magazine. I think it is true that because of the glossy paper and official looking binding, it really signifies itself more than just a magazine.

When I think about it, it’s amazing how much the magazine surrounded me. We never had a subscription, but in most of my classrooms in elementary school, there was always a huge stack of National Geographic somewhere on the bookshelf. And even today, going to any doctor’s office, there is bound to be old and new ones lying around on the tables. This could be silly, but maybe because people are just so comfortable with the magazine, for its familiarity that it calms them down when entering the stressful doctor environment. In this sense, magazines serve as a distraction and to ease impatience. And in the case of National Geographic, one can thumb through and not have to read all of the stories to enjoy it; just looking at the beautiful pictures is fine enough. I had never thought about it before, but the magazine really does revolve around its pictures. So many times when asked about a profession, people will say, “I want to be a photographer for National Geographic”. Is the magazine some kind of mecca for photographers? Or is it something much deeper than that? I have always loved and respected National Geographic, but I think it is beneficial to dissect it. When one thing has so profoundly shaped our views of other cultures, I think it is important to question the source.

Has anyone else seen the new Discovery Channel show "Last One Standing" ? It's a co-production between the BBC and DC that documents the year long travels of six men who traipse about the planet and more or less impose themselves upon various indigenous tribes during festivals and/or celebrations that involve special events (such as Zulu stick fighting in S. Africa) to see if they, as westerners, can cut it and not only defeat the other men on the show, but perhaps even members of whichever group that they happen to be with at the time. They're calling it an "anthropological travel series," something that when generally uttered makes me wary, but when said by the discovery channel makes my ears bleed.

A few things: firstly, they changed the title from "Last Man Standing" for the BBC broadcast of the show in the UK to our current, "Last One Standing" for the US. Some last ditch effort to make it more PC? Um, they're still men aren't they?
Secondly, the disclaimer frame aired right before the show includes a warning for 'indigenous nudity.' Wait... so is indigenous nudity somehow different from all other nudity? "It's ok guys, it's just indigenous nudity, not real nudity!"
Thirdly, the person who writes the narrative script should pay more attention to what they're doing. The show is full of little gems like, "to their great shame, the three who were not deemed worthy to fight by the chief were sent to live with the women."
And so it would appear that this show is a veritable minefield of cultural mishaps. It brought to mind the last few films watched in class that addressed our cultural creation of the 'other' and our subsequent imposition of that framework upon those who fit our preconception of what the 'other' is. Apparently nothing much has changed. Even more distressing is that I went to middle and high school with Cory on the show. We will be having a little chat.

After completing the audio and video portions of our creating media project, I must say I have a new respect for film, television and music producers. I knew that there was a lot of time and effort involved in producing media; however, I was unaware of how tedious the work actually is. It took well over three hours for my group to produce our two minute podcast, and while I thought it turned out amazingly well, I highly doubt anyone would line up to purchase a copy of it. Similarly, it took us about five hours to complete the video editing process, and we simply worked with the footage we had (rather than re-shooting until we had perfect footage). The project not only revealed how difficult it can be to produce media, but also how easy it is to manipulate it. While we were working on editing our video there was a person editing interviews for UVM tv sitting next to us. The initial interview footage he imported was certainly different from the end product. Simply cutting out the "uhs", "ums" and awkward silences created the illusion of a smooth and flowing interview ( I always wondered how Britney Spears was able to answer questions so quickly and fluidly during interviews). Now I know that it's all at the touch of a button. Overall, I felt that the two parts of our project presented two very different versions of the "drunk bus". On the one hand, our podcast made the bus sound fun and exciting- like something you'd want to be on, and on the other hand, our video footage revealed that this was far from true. In reality the bus is not what it used to be, or at least what I think it used to be. It is empty, awkward and boring.

Vanessa’s post on the Discovery Channel’s show "Last One Standing" mentioned that a disclaimer before the show warns of 'indigenous nudity.' I am a fan of the Discovery Channel and usually find it to be (mostly) culturally sensitive and accurate. Of course when the goals includes entertainment and information the former often has a way of taking precedence over the latter. This show, however, has caused me to lose a lot of the respect that I once had for the old DC. Anyway, this reminded me of a section in “Reading National Geographic” concerning “indigenous nudity” in their photographs. “Reading National Geographic” explains that until the mass circulation of pornography in the 1960s, National Geographic was the only mass culture venue where Americans could see a woman’s breasts. It was also probably the only venue for the largely white male audience to see the nude bodies of non-white women. Richard Pryor, in his stand up act, call National Geographic “the black man’s Playboy”. The book goes on to note the difference between the coverage of nude women and of nude men. Obviously the mostly male audience and male photographers helped to ensure that while breasts were splashed about liberally a penis would not be found, often at the expense of careful posing or even air-brushing. This also reflected historically the sexualization of African and African American women and the fear of black male sexuality. What’s interesting to me is the distinction that’s made between acceptable “indigenous nudity” and all other kinds of nudity. If the deciding factor determining what kind of nudity is allowed is if it is viewed as sexual then I think these photographs bring up an interesting point. In the places where women are always topless I can imagine that bare breasts may not have the same sexual appeal as they do in American society. The nature of the photos, including the fact that there is no male nudity or even older nude women, suggests that those at National Geographic did not see “indigenous nudity” through a strictly scientific lense.

Discussion of the Discovery Channel's sexist tendencies could never be truer, epsecially since I saw the development of these perspectives from behind the scenes this summer first handedly as they filmed an archaeology special in South America. The crew, consisting of all males, filmed and directed the project of archaeologists (all females expect 3). Their reason for not having any women on their crew mainly relied upon "how hard it is to bring women down to South America". Ironically, our project only had 3 men on it and the rest of the women survived South America with much more success and dignity than the Discovery boys could ever do, as they stayed in the most expensive hotel in the country and pampered themselves, adorned with heated marble floors, champagne and chocolates on their pillows.
.
Like Vanessa mentioned in her post about the "Last Man Standing", the sexism is definitely visible to the viewers, but what's not evident to us is what actually goes on behind the scenes of these "reality shows" which continually legitimize gender stereotypes and roles. When the users and producers of the media come from the perspective, it perpetuates the representation and reinforces these views whether it is consciously or not just as we see certain unintented visual metaphors in National Geographic magazine. It is interesting and scary that these sources like the Discovery Channel and National Geographic are where we all get most of our outside information about the world and yet it is rarely questioned or rejected. The sources of these media outlets come from a certain perspective and Discovery just so happens to be a sexist one.

Brian Miles visited our class to discuss wind power and “The Social Life of an Image”. I was shocked to realize that there is so much opposition to the use of wind power. We asked the question of why it is not more widely used in Vermont. And the answer is that wind turbines are not aesthetically pleasing. Landscapes of previous rolling green mountains would become wind farms and the locals strongly oppose such invasion of their personal space. The visual reaction of building a windmill is that it is a blatant sign of industrialization that detracts from natural beauty. We watched a video clip that was put together by members of a community in northern Vermont to oppose newly proposed use of wind power. There was one woman crying and expressing how “her mountain” was destroyed when acres of land were cleared to build a windmill. This isolation of one moment of a narrative focused on building a sympathetic attitude towards something similar happening to you, the observer of this medium. I personally think that it ridiculous to say that this is a form of corporate invasion, however I have grown up in a more urban community. Seeing windmills in an urban setting seems like it would be less difficult for the general public to swallow. What do you think?

I recently read an article titled “Cyberspace and Race” by Henry Jenkins for an English class I’m taking. The article focuses on the question of cyberspace providing a theoretically “race-free” space, and in facilitating a discussion around the subject the author found to his surprise that rather than being a race free forum for interaction and communication, most people assumed that all the invisible faces they were interacting with were white. “Perhaps when early white Netizens were arguing that cyberspace was ‘color-blind,’ what they really meant was that they desperately wanted a place where they didn’t have to think about, look at or talk about racial differences…Giving everybody broadband is a problem of a very different order than broadening our minds,” says Jenkins.

I don’t think the existence of a “race-free” virtual space is possible. Equating silence about race to being “race-free” is essentially inaccurate; the article makes the point that just because race is not talked about does not mean it doesn’t effect everyone in a chat room or any other forum. For example, a chat room where no one has identified their race may be considered “race-free” simply because no one has to address the issue head-on, but it effectively creates a situation where minorities in chat rooms feel they need to choose between feeling like the only minority or identifying themselves as such on the chance that someone else may as well. In addition, thinking of a chat room as “race free” may cause a white person to believe and talk as though all chat room participants have the same experiences within the American culture, causing “unidentified” minorities to feel alienated. If they were thus motivated to point out their race for the sake of acknowledging their identity, it may in turn cause white participants to feel that they need to change their language or check their topic of conversation so as not to offend anyone. Essentially, “race-free” spaces do not exist, only ones in which race is not discussed. When taboos and etiquette exist around discussing race in “polite conversation,” many questions and issues go unsaid and thus, unresolved; likewise, the hesitancy to discuss or address race overshadows the learning that can go on between people of color and white people over both different and shared experiences.

With the evolution of media comes an evolution of how and for what purposes that media is utilized. Chat rooms differ from previous forms of media, such as television, the radio, and the telephone, in that they essentially lack any sensual input from or about the physical person one communicates with through them. While race, nationality, or ethnicity may be perceptible when we can see someone or hear someone, and are thus impossible to ignore, chat rooms and the internet create a new form of communication media that give us a new perspective on how readily varying experiences due to race are acknowledged when race is not obvious.

The film we watched today in class awakened a number of emotions I have in terms of advertising and media. Or more specifically, the images of beauty and false reality which we are exposed to on a daily basis. Sometimes I question the daily basis part, but then I realized that advertisements are not confined to billboard and television advertisements. Even if I decide to hop online to check my email or the weather, there are always advertisements for new offerings, and often there are images of beautiful people trying to sell a product. An interesting aspect of advertising that I never really payed very much attention to, is the way in which advertising tells us not only how we should look, but how to live our daily life. If we decide to go to a bar, we should be drinking Bud Light and then at some point we should break out in to a dance, in fact the entire bar should be dancing and throwing balloons in the air. Is the significance of our lives based on these advertisements? Well not really, but in terms of a capitalist world, yes. Something that I even noticed in watching the videos in class was that in some videos, people changed their personalities in order to play a certain role. I believe this change in personality was in an attempt to get a certain message across to viewers. This same method is used in advertising. I guess I'm beginning to question all forms of media and their portrayal of the natural world/life. If we know that the advertisements and people we see are not "real" than why do we even listen to them? Perhaps we want to have a connection with our media, and although we might consciously distrust it, it continues to motivate us.

We watched a video in class entitled The Ad And The Ego, which described various media techniques that are commonly used in advertising. Advertising is one of the most powerful forms of education because it is not recognized as public education. Assumptions are layed out about how the world works and the advertisements encourage individuals to engage in destructive activity. It was really disturbing for me to realize the extent to which my own reality is molded by advertising. My worldview is constantly subconsciously molded by being surrounded by advertising. Advertisements start to attack my confidence and generate anxiety. I then react by fixing the problem that an advertisement has presented to me, by buying that new tooth-whitening product or getting that solution to give me the perfect shave. The basic message of advertisements is that “you are not alright being the way you are now…you need to change.” Should it serve as a surprise then that the numbers of individuals with body image issues is drastically increasing? Why do we allow media to have such a detrimental impact on the way we live our lives and why do we not try harder to fight it?

So I've been thinking about TV Be Gone, the universal remote Luis showed us in class on Tuesday that can turn off any TV. Luis joked about how if he went to a bar and started turning off TVs, people would get really mad. Which is true. When I think about it, in a rowdy bar on a game night or something, someone using a TV Be Gone could probably even find him or herself getting beaten up. I find that when I'm in Sports Bars (which is extremely rare) there are men with their eyes positively glued to the television. To interrupt their game could result in an unwelcome display of masculinity. So what I want to know is how did electronics become more important than people? Why does it not seem so far fetched that someone could get beaten up outside of a bar for messing with the tv or the music?
People today are so wrapped in their electronics that I think they are losing touch with what is really important. I won't lie, there have been times when I've been watching a TV show and a friend comes over and I don't really want to deal with them until the program is over. An example - a few weeks ago was the Top Chef finale. As the final segment was playing, my roommate came home and started talking to me and my other roommate (who was watching with me.) Instead of taking the time to explain to her to come back in a bit, we ignored her... why did we do this? Why were we so afraid to miss a few seconds of a TV show that in no way directly impacted our lives? I don't know any answers, but it's just something to chew on.

I don't think it's necessarily people being attatched to electronics so much as what those electronics produce. Humans throughout time and space have created communities and relationships in innumerable different settings. The human need for community is right up there with the human search for meaning in importance and relevance. It just so happens that today we are inundated with electronic means for creating groups and communities, even if they do lead to strained or weakened relationships in some cases. So we get attatched to shows and music because it is another type of communion with people.
In my living room here in Burlington we have a very ignored fireplace and a constantly blaring, unnecessarily large television. They are right beside one another. I had a thought one day that it is like the TV has replaced the proverbial, primitive man's campfire. People used to sit around a fire and share stories and create music and eat food (they still do, this is VT afterall!), but today we have the television which seems to serve the same purposes (save for the warmth and grilling capabilities).
It seems to me that it's not the electronics, but the sense of meaning and community we can glean from out shining objects that is what really counts.

Woooooohoooooooo! I just posted the 100th post...do I get extra credit? A prize? Some physical object that would bring happiness to my life? Deoderant so people won't hate me? A pack of cigarettes so people think I'm cool?

Coinciding with our short film video projects, Apple held the Insomnia Film Festival which allowed college students to create a three minute short film over the course of 24 hours. Interesting concept which ties into our discussion over the accessibility of media and the the general public. Couple submissions by our own University of Vermont students, one in particular by friends Louis Armistead and David Andreini called "Donut Tempt Me." Once logged in, you have the ability to view all submission and make comments and rating for each.

Link to "Donut Tempt Me": http://edcommunity.apple.com/insomnia_fall07/item.php?itemID=1879

General link to Insomnia Film Festival site: http://www.apple.com/education/insomnia/

Ever since I took a CDAE course about the consumer and advertising, I have not been able to stop talking about the negative effects and huge impact that advertising has on culture and society. But, as Luis said in class, it is not so simple. I think whenever I talk about it I am unable to express what I feel are deep and profound effects. I always bring up Jean Kilbourne's points that advertising leads to violence against women because of they way they are depicted as objects in advertising imagery. It seems obvious to me now, after repeated exposure to this sort of information, that advertisements make us feel bad about ourselves, so that we will buy something to remedy a non-existent deficiency. It frustrates me that even though I am aware of these things I still let ads affect me. I compare myself to airbrushed women and buy more clothing than I need. Clearly the effects of advertisements run deeper than I can begin to conceptualize and resist. The values and feelings that are sold to us in advertisements are real and important, and even if we are conscious of the fact that a product will not create these feelings, we are still affected, particularly by visual imagery, which our brain does not process the same way as words.
Jhally's article in the reader brought up a few things I had not thought about before. I am a proponet for media literacy, whatever that entails. I think it should be taught in schools, which are increasingly being used as venues for advertising as well. Jhally suggested that learning how to produce the images we are exposed to is more useful than just learning how to read them (p. 335). I learned a great deal from creating the video short, and it was clear how easy it is to alter images to convey a message or feeling (the medium is the message, especially with advertisements). He also talked about the nature of television ads, or shows, how so many fragmented images are put together so quickly. They flash at us and our brain cannot fully process them. He suggests that this has the potential to change our form of thought...to me that is frightening! Another point I had not really thought of is that ads are not given an institutional context, there are no "credits". Viewers know that something is trying to be sold to them, but by whom, exactly? Media literacy involves more than just learning how to read ads, because from personal experience, I have learned how to read and analyze ads, and I am still very affected by them. I would like to continue to learn about advertisements more, and perhaps try to change my overwhelmingly negative, one-track perspective. Ads can have a positive impact, and are educational. They are richly telling cultural artifacts that deserve more attention (in an analytical sense) than they get.

During the video we watched last week about advertising, one of the main speakers stated that in order to not feel the negative effects of advertising, we just need to "disengage" ourselves from the advertising world. This is easier said than done...Everywhere we go we are faced with powerful images all with the same message..."YOU'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH....Try this product and you might become better". How can we "disengage" without going to live in the middle of the woods like Thoreau? Has it become too much a part of our culture and ourselves where a process of disengagement just can't happen? Is advertising like this as intense in other parts of the world? I know when I was studying abroad in Paris, ads were EVERYWHERE and just as exaggerated and penetrating. Do we really know who we are without comparing ourselves to others like we have been taught? Who woudl we all be without these ads consuming our everyday lives? Maybe somewhat happy with ourselves....hmmm....strange thought.

I was really shocked when we watched that video advertisement by one of the major banks where the little boy has a real life experience that nearly directly depicts the nature of the video game “Grand Theft Auto”. This little boy steals a car, averts a chase from the police (complete with sniper fire), and ultimately ends up back at home where his father has not even noticed that his son had left. The tag-line was something like “Everyone is welcome here”. How sick and twisted is that??!! So basically, no matter how immoral you are, this bank is willing to take your money. But this begs to ask the question, are we really so caught up in our virtual realities that our tangible reality is changed by the virtual experiences? Initially, I thought the commercial was pretty funny because this little boy is acting like a hardcore thug, which he clearly is not. But as I thought about it further, I just became more and more disturbed.

Expanding on the ideas of the movie we watched about advertisements…Clearly we realize now that advertisements are everywhere, and even if we don’t think so, they influence us. I have a hard time with this. I would like to think that I’m not easily influenced. But isn’t that what our society is all about: influencing others? Whether it be to buy something, or adopt a similar view, there is simply always something to gain when you have people on your side. How would cigarettes have become so popular if they weren’t made to look “cool” by mainstream media (movies, ads, etc.).
Although advertisements have permeated our lives for some time now, nowadays, they really are EVERYWHERE. When I watch a 2 minute video clip on cnn.com, I must first watch a 1 minute advertisement. This drives me crazy! Obviously, there is so much research conducted about the impact of media advertisements, that companies would only spend millions of dollars if they knew it would work. I think the point is…the reason that companies spend so much is that they know we cannot escape from their grasp. We can choose to “ignore” the annoying commercials and looming billboards…but we often still see the name of the company or product. And I believe that this is really all they want. The more they instill their name, even if there is no real connection, you will recognize the name in a store and hopefully buy the product. So I thought that I was safe from advertisements, but when I think about it…I don’t think anyone can completely ignore the messages. When I’m in the drug store, am I going to buy a brand of lotion that I have never heard of? Probably not… I’ll most likely buy dove, because wait…don’t they have some like cool ad campaign about real beauty?

The documentary The Ad and the Ego brought up the very good point that society constantly cloaks power with aesthetically pleasing objects. This thereby makes it desirable to use up our earthly resources. Advertising creates a premeditated passion for consumption. Where these objects come from and go to is invisible to the consumer. Our consumption, however is at the expense of other parts of the world. This expense leads to unequal development of other countries around the world. We need the world’s resources, therefore we are willing to put up with wars for them if need be. Third world populations are seen as competitors for these resources. The term “collateral damage” illustrates that people are willing to tolerate the violence that occurs when one nation takes control over resources from another nation. How far are we willing to go to keep driving our fancy cars? There are as many cars as people in the United States of America. If there was a car for every person in China, there would be a higher demand for resources than are available in the world. This reality check really makes you think about the future and how quickly we are depleting our resources as a result of consumption.

This weekend I was playing a little pickup soccer game that turned into shirts and skin and inevitably became a conversation on tattoos. A few of the guys had tattoos on their shoulder blades, a common spot for men in their twenties to get fresh ink these days. Through out the entire conversation and comparison I kept thinking about our class discussion on tattoos as a media medium. Originally, I felt this was an over analysis on seemingly basic practice. I was trying to relate it to other forms and one thing I thought of was jewelry. I think that jewelry and tattoos are similar in nature as personal accessories. Clothes could be considered in this comparison also, but with clothes I can better understand the idea that they are a media source. However, I have two tattoos and I would not consider them accessories. When one gets a tattoo there is an element of significance and meaning that gets reflected on in the process. The event that some one else will see your tattoo and the expression it conveys was where I originally found the truth behind the argument about tattoos as media.
However, this weekend it was one tattoo in particular that put this idea into a better perspective. A friend of mine has a tattoo of his home town, its pretty clear to understand some of the motivation behind this one. The other, a newer one I hadn’t seen before was phrase I couldn’t grasp. I’ve always liked tats of words, parts of poems, lyrics, or something of this nature, and to me, these seem to be more “media-esque.”
(a little side note here, I just asked my roommate the proper way to use phrase “esque” in writing and they informed me that it should never be used in academic writing. When asked why I told him I was writing about tattoos as media and he responded with why, did you seem some one with a TV tattooed on their arm, or a New York Times headline across their back. This is similar to how I first thought of the relationship between these two ideas.)
So, my friend has a phrase tattooed across his shoulder and when I told him I didn’t quite get it, he told me it’s the slogan of his dad’s company. That right there is media for ya. This is clearly related to some sort of advertisement or connected in general to public knowledge. I’m not so sure why he decided to have this permanently written across his body, but that some of the beauty behind the ideas of tattoos. Like media, a lot of what you understand or get out of them is based on your interpretation, your own intent, and what you relate it to. In that sense, even a tattoo of a pretty flower, or I’d go so far as to say now that a heart and arrow with the word mom in it isn’t so far from off from media. So, like my roommate, I first thought that for a tattoo to be media it must just be a Nike swoosh or a picture of a radio, maybe even just a big TM on your lower calf, but the intent of putting something or anything really, on your body with the intent that other will see it and it conveys something, that’s media right there.

I thought Tuesday’s lecture by Brian Miles about wind power and image was great because it tied into what we’ve been discussing for the past several weeks. It’s clear that images are ambiguous, where anti and pro wind power organization utilized the same photograph, but in different contexts. It’s become even more evident that the way an image is view can convey different meaning.
The film we watched in class on Friday, “The Ad and the Ego” highlighted what we all know. That advertising is a powerful and ever increasingly employed tool. Teaching us how to consume in the commodity-centered world in which we live. The part about how advertising has developed since the 1920’s was quite interesting, where in the early stages ads were more social in nature, whereas by the 1950’s the material world was developing a shift of ad production occurred; focusing attention on the discontent in consumers. Another point the film made was that ads focus on what is wrong with you and how you can fix it by buying this or that. It is important to note that advertisements never say, "You are okay." In today’s world, it is impossible to escape advertising, on a conscious or unconscious level. We are constantly bombarded with commodity based images in movies, walking down the street, attending a baseball game, or shopping. Jhally’s article in the Anthropology Reader makes the point that we define others through the institution of advertising, we compare and contrast what “we” look like compared to those in the images we see.
Over the course of the semester, I have begun to question media and the ways in which “things” are represented. I look forward to the section on advertising because I have noticed over the last few years that the power of advertising has increased. When I use the internet or even when checking my email, you will no doubt encounter numerous advertisements and “spam” mail.

We were discussing the fires in San Diego, California in class and how most people were not getting their information from authoritative sources. The increasing media outlets made it possible for many individuals to more directly communicate information to one another through blogging and AM radio. Blogging allows people to get the information they need in real time. A.M. radio provides personal, but not authoritative sources of information. Cellular telephone use is prohibited as it interrupts rescue authorities from responding. I just found it fascinating that so many people actually use blogging as a means for exchanging information in real time. This definitely saved lives during the southern California fires and I am happy that people took advantage of such a media outlet. I also never thought about the fact that A.M. radio was a more personal and not authoritative means of providing information that people need, but the more I thought about it the more I understood that concept. Having family in the San Diego area, this topic hit close to home. My relatives who live in that area are not very computer savvy, but have since figured out how to access these local types of blogs and practice communicating on them, now. As we trend towards an era of technological advances I keep wondering how much we control the technology versus how much the technology controls us. What do you think?

Our open ended discussion got me thinking today about brand loyalty. Now I'm a creature of habit; I recently couldn't find a bottle of the shampoo I have been using for upwards of 4 to 5 years at the store and in a chaotic moment of indecision left the pharmacy without any shampoo. I've tried other shampoos but, hey, it ain't broke so I'm not trying to fix it. This, along with our discussion, got me thinking about this concept of brand loyalty.

While I can't reproduce the figure that I heard somewhere but cigarette smokers are supposedly among the consumers with the most loyalty to their brand. I can totally believe this figure, even if smokers may not be the most loyal, all of the smokers I know have a certain bias towards a given brand. They could go an entire life smoking the same brand of cigarettes without even considering trying another. I was discussing this point with one of our classmates and she exclaimed, "Holy Sh!t, I never thought of it but I've only bought one type of cigarettes the entire time I've smoked." Come to think about it, I am even bias towards my brand of cigarettes, (yeah, yeah I know it's a dirty habit, is going to kill me some day, ultimately makes me look unattractive and all that jive) but all that aside, I've always bought the same brand and the same type. There are many incarnations of cigarettes on the market (light, ultralight, smooth, mild, menthol, etc.) but what it comes down to is the same product. Tobacco, rolled in paper with a filter. I've tried various brands, mainly bumming off people and also experimented by spicing it up in buying different brands, but I've always come back to Mr. Joe Camel. He's been there since the beginning.

What does this ultimately say about consumers, not just those who are smokers? Is it merely the addiction and the symbol of that brand represents that has drawn us in to be so loyal to cigarettes or, perhaps, it's something greater? Now with cigarette advertisements almost dead, how did smokers become so "hooked" (no pun intended) on a given brand? With an almost complete lack of visual advertising, how could this be so? Is it simply that we believe one product is superior over another or possibly, we see this brand as a defining factor in our lives? But no matter what it is, Joe Camel has always been there, I always manage to run back to familiarity. In the end, this can stand as an explanation for why people have such loyalty to a brand or product. Not so much the quality but rather the symbol or the habit of using something until you've reached a point where you actually believe it is better then comparable products. At this point you replace the brand symbol when you imagine the generic product (the image of "Camels" replace the mental image for "cigarettes" and "Brand XYZ Shampoo" comes to symbolize washing your hair.) Like I said before, I'm a creature of habit as a result of brand loyalty and I don't see myself switching anytime soon.

Note: I'm not making any attempt at glorifying cigarette smoking in this blog post at any point. They're bad, we all know that. I mean, even the Surgeon General tells us this.

During our class on Tuesday we discussed the paradox of choice. I am enthralled by this paradox because it is so very relevant to my every day life. I began to ponder over whether or not I am a satisfier or a maximizer. What I realized, is that I can be both, depending on the situation. Fortunately, there are some products out there that are barely or never advertised in magazines or television, and perhaps those are the products that cause me to be a maximizer. For example, it was not until a few years ago that I became interested in buying healthier and odd name brand foods. Unlike my childhood when I would always reach for Coco Puffs or Oreo cookies, I go for Nature Valley or some other brand that was virtually inexistent to me in the past. For me, I believe that a concentration in ingredients has swayed me from being a satisfier, to a maximizer.
Well, not in every case. So I've come to the realization that most face washes, really don't work. For problem skin, prescriptions are the way to go. Yet, I don't want to spend the money, and I want to wash my face with something that actually works. Therefore, the new face wash of choice, is the most simple, barely infused with any ingredient type of wash. The only reason that so many companies say that there face wash will have miraculous results is so that the consumer will by them. Thus in the store, many of us can become maximizers. Checking every label, unconsciously or consciously remembering the beautiful ads with people with clear skin. Although the wisest person is perhaps the satisfier who realizes that no wash is really better than the other, thus they narrow down their choice and then boom its in the cart. In a world with so much influence, and often decontexualized, how do we make the "right" or most logical decisions without consciously incorporating something we have previously seen. It's kind of like deja vu, we've already seen it, thus it seems to comfort us in our decisions.

Since we've been discussing cross-platform media (such as the increasing interpellation of advertising and television content), this struck me: CSI: NY has an episode involving the virtual world of Second Life. Check out this bit in the NY Times, as well as a trailer for the episode, at:

http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/second-life-on-a-tv-screen/index.html?hp

In class, we were discussing different advertising strategies. Many of us agreed that we become more comfortable buying a product that we have seen advertised. We have an attitude of “yeah…I’ll support that lifestyle/cause.” A “maximizer” is overly critical and chooses a product with an attitude of ‘tons of choices leads to paralysis’, as Luis Vivanco explained. A “satisficer”, on the other hand, chooses one of the product options quickly and without painfully agonizing over the decision. ...One slew of television advertisements that drive me crazy are those ads for the new Ford cars. They show an average looking male or female who exchanges his/her vehicle for a “comparable” vehicle (i.e. SUV for an SUV, a coupe for a coupe) and they drive the Ford “equivalent” for a week or two. You never once see the condition of the original vehicle that these men and women drive, but all of the drivers inevitably fall in love with the Ford “equivalent”. These Ford “equivalents” are top-of-the-line models complete with sunroofs, leather, awesome stereo, great tires, etc. I feel that this comparison is unfair and unrealistic, because who wouldn’t love a top-of-the-line vehicle of any sort?

As I was watching the movie "Cannibal Tours" today in class, I couldn't help noticing this overwhelming feeling of embarassment for the whole idea of tourism. What irked me was that none of the tourists were really trying to get to know any of the natives or at least TRYING to speak their language. They just made their English or German sound even more pronounced and thought that taking snapshots of random people and buying wood carvings really embodied the whole experience of these ex-cannibals. Sadly, when they return home and glance over their pictures from this experience they will think that they truly experienced another culture...got to the core of it. I would have been as pissed off as that one woman rambling and rambling on if white tourists came to my tribe and acted that indifferently. I also found it interesting about the whole price issue. Obviously these tourists were overflowing with money...Anyone that flies to some part of the Amazon just to "see" what it's all about has to have some sort of money. The fact that they were being so cheap and asking for a second and third price was quite a slap in the face to the natives. They obviously don't have much and these rich tourists were as cheap as can be.

When I used to think of tourism, I thought of an educational experience that really opened people's eyes and widened their cultural awareness. Now I just see it as a very fake experience, where only the wealthy (usually white) are following each other around like sheep, thinking they really are in another reality. I am just annoyed that no one was truly TRYING....they were all standing outside of the culture bubble, ackwardly peering in. I'm not saying that visiting another culture like this is an easy task, and they should all be holding hands and celebrating two cultures coming together in peace...I just saw these white tourists as stuck-up and non-empathic. They might have bought a little wooden statue but had no idea that this was EVERYTHING to the native selling these statues. This was all they had....and over the years, this little statue will probably sit proudly on some white man's desk collecting dust. But the white man will never truly know what this man or woman went through to carve this, the material used, the hardships endured because of taking the second, third or fourth price.

Why do we as tourists, just look like a bunch of bumbling idiots snapping photos at every thing (or bare native) that we can? How can we visit other cultures and get the most out of the experience without carrying a sign that says "VERY IGNORANT & NOT OPEN TO LEARNING....JUST WANT TO SNAP PICTURE...AND REMEMBER TO SAY CHEESE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE DO IN AMERICA!" We need to stop peering into the window of these cultures and try to step into this other world. Try to see how they really live, what they go through on a day to day basis and find some sort of connection. Many tourists may just want to get their faces painted and feel tribal while dancing around on a boat, but do they really know the true stories of this new culture?

I think we all need to be taught better ways of seeing other cultures....especially when visiting.

The documentary Cannibal Tours was a very interesting look into the Western perception of an indigenous lifestyle as primitive. Indigenous people thought that European colonizers were their ancestors returning, because they did not know anything about the outside world. Now, when they see tourists they joke that the dead have returned. Tourists objectify the indigenous people and the indigenous feel that their ancestors did not have money therefore they will not and do not, and effectively they are unable to travel to other countries. They believe that wealthy people come to visit them because their ancestry made them wealthy. The tourists in the documentary are depicted as making a mockery of the indigenous lifestyle. Most of the tourists want a picture with the seemingly disconnected lifestyle of these primitive beings from theirs. The reality is that colonization has changed and molded the needs and wants of the future generations of the native peoples. Indigenous children show signs of colonization singing songs of Jesus and wearing clothing that bears the symbols of internationally known products. Is the more primitive, indigenous way of life better than ours? Who is to really say?

"Cannibal Tours" was an interesting perspective on tourism ad the use of media. It was pretty embarressing to watch how tourists use cameras and such things as a way to capture and own this new place in which they had no real humanly interactions. Instead of uniting people with a common tool, it became the barrier in which the tourists viewed the people. The interactions stopped at the camera and did not permit communication to occur between both parties whereas we have talked about the use of photos and other media to encourage or become the connection between very different people. The most illustrating part of the film was when they were interviewing one of the native men about how tourists take pictures of them and then that old lady appeared leering around trying to take a picture of him from the back. They wanted to take pictures without the people knowing, in a candid, "natural" way. I think that tourism like this, and having evidence that you have been on tours like this, has become a prestigous status symbol, even without the aspect of cost to get there. It is like personally being a part of the National Geographic life even though as we saw, these people had no legitimate or positive contact with those who they were there to see. No understanding, just proof of exoticism, was achieved.

When I watched this movie, it took me awhile to get a sense of what was happening. Once I saw how the format was following people of many different cultures, acting in the same way, I had a mixed reaction (and here is where I start to play some Devil's Advocate.)
1) The people we saw in the film were positively laughable. Watching them pose for pictures and structure their entire experience around the novelty of indigenous people was upsetting, to say the least. As mentioned by someone else, the moment when the older woman crept into the background to take a picture of the "native" was really amusing because it seemed so absurd. This woman just popped out of nowhere and clearly did not think that the man she was photographing was talking about her. When the man learned someone was observing him, he froze up and became uncomfortable. I felt really bad for him because his objectification seemed very tangible in that moment of tourism interfering with his life. Also, the way people talked about the people they were visiting was certainly painted with all sorts of ethnocentrism. They were talking down to these people and commented on how they were less evolved as a people, but they were probably pretty OK about that.
2) Tourists get a bad reputation. Nobody ever wants to seem like a tourist. I know that when I was in Europe, my brother and I tried not to be tourist-y and avoided hyper tourist-y behavior (for example, in Pisa, Italy, a lot of people pose with the leaning tower in such a way that it looks like they are holding the tower -- by extending their arms and putting themselves in the foreground of the picture. This meant that there were a lot of people standing in open spaces posing in a pretty weird position). However, who were these people hurting by being tourists? If that picture is something they want for their memories, than they should have it. With the people in the film, there was a moment where the woman wanted to be photographed with some native children and had them gather around her. I don't think the problem is in the picture so much, because that's simply what the people who take these pictures KNOW. It seems apparent that the trips are enjoyable to them and many people commented on how they wanted to get away and see a different way of life and commented on how it was interesting to see a different type of people. I think that there is a lot of value in visiting people of other cultures (obviously, I'm an anthropology major) and I think more people should visit people from lifestyles different from their own. I like that these people were not visiting standard tourist spots. The challenge arises primarily because they are viewing what they see through an ethnocentric lens and that makes it difficult to see and value the real culture that they are visiting. For example, with the carvings that the natives were selling, one man was complaining that they don't buy enough of them but there is nothing he can do about that because he can't force them to buy from him. It also struck me how he was wondering where these people got all this money. It made me sad to know that these people clearly did have a lot of money but were not really giving it back to the people that they were kind of there to see... Another thing that made me sad was that the carvings that were made surely had some sort of significance and story behind them. On one hand, I wanted people to buy them just to support the people. On the other hand, I hate to think about them buying something that someone worked really hard on and not appreciating it or taking the time to understand the meaning behind it.
Basically, I think this whole tourism of native areas to be a bit of a catch-22. I'm glad that people are visiting and learning about different people, but sad that they don't seem to be learning much of anything. I don't know. It perplexes me. I see both sides of the argument. They're both valid.

There is so much to say about the movie “Cannibal Tours”. I definitely think there was a sad undertone to the movie. There was such a large gap between the natives and the tourists. When the natives were interviewed, some of them were angry, knowing that the tourists had so much money, but did not contribute much to their economy. At the same time, the tourists were happily unaware that their presence was not so welcome. To them, it is simply an “exotic” vacation. Seeing the women sunning themselves on the boats in their bikinis…it just seemed so ridiculous. As was pointed out by one of the natives…if they had money they would be able to get on boats and travel. It is only the people with money that are capable of experiencing other cultures. The term “backward” has often been used to describe these indigenous populations. I think this stems from the fact that there is simply no trace of the modern world in their societies. But why is this looked at as a bad thing? It is sad that money is the determining factor when it comes to “experiencing” the world. For as long as there has been the means for traveling, it is only the privileged that are able to take part.

There is something very negative associated with the word “tourist”. No one ever wants to look or seem like a tourist. I think that if the people on the tour really wanted to get a sense of the culture, they should have cared less about taking pictures. It seemed as if they were all hiding behind their cameras because they were too uncomfortable to really engage with the locals. Seeing them constantly snap pictures of them…creating the ideal picture by telling them to move, or turn around…it just seemed like they were treating them like objects, ordering them around to get the perfect picture. There just seemed to be no connection between the two cultures.

I think once again it is important to look at the way the media was manipulated for Cannibal Tours. We know that this film is coming from filmmakers who have a similar view to us, so we don't really question what is being presented. But for the sake of analysis of this film it's a good exercise to look at the context of all this tourism debauchery. The filmmakers are clearly portraying what they set out to portray. And they did this through various strategic shots and interviews. The natives do seem to be befuddled by the whole situation, and the tourists truly do seem ignorant. But what are we really objecting to here? Nobody's being hurt or harmed. Beyond the problem of ignorance there is a problem with lack of infrastructure to help the two parties communicate properly. The akwardness stems from the forced nature of these situations. Maybe it's not just the tourists that are the problem but also the means by which they are travelling to these remote locations. Basically I am just trying to shed some light on the fact that nobody involved WANTS for there to be miscommunication. I think we often assume that since the tourists are "westernized" they know everything and they should know just what to do in these situations. I think they feel the akwardness, but just don't know what to do. At least I really, really hope they do. If not, that is just sad.

This article, by David MacDougall, examines how ethnographic filmmaking is stylized and what this results in in terms of viewer reaction. A key point that MacDougall first threw out was the idea that it is difficult to discern a consistency in ethnographic filmmaking because the practice is constantly undergoing technological shifts, which in turn, affect the stylistic shifts. I thought this was a really interesting concept because it really applies to all mediums that we have discussed: technology has a huge effect on how the discourse has changed over time regarding media in general. You look at something like playwriting and while the scripts may not be affected by technology, the actual stage production has changed drastically in terms of lighting and sound effects.

What MacDougall gets at, however, is that even though there is a huge cultural gap between flilmmaker and subject and product and audience, the gap is further enhanced because of the role that technology plays in visual production. What I think he means by this is that the basic fact that it is a film affects the experience that the audience gets versus say, written productions. The idea behind film is that viewers will not be able to experience the actual culture, but will try to experience it in some alternate way just by seeing it and learning about it. I was surprised the author made this statement specifically about film because really, isn't that how all advertising works? Commercials make us feel nostalgia and sensitivity or they make us believe we are inadequate and need clearer complexion or a wardrobe from Gap. These are all false experiences that make us say, think, and do things that we did not come up with on our own or from real-life discussions or experiences.

MacDougall later states, "For Western filmmakers, conflict is an almost essential discursive principle - if not in an obvious form, then in the form of issues or problems requiring resolution." This statement was made in a slightly different context but it totally relates to what I mentioned before. MacDougall is specifically addressing the film practice, but conflict is really what our whole society's media is based on. Movies like "Bowling for Columbine" have shown us that main media outputs alter situations so that they provoke our emotions and increase the anxiety we feel about society in general. I find it interesting that this was so specifically addressed to ethnographic film. Documentaries that I've seen such as "Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion" definitely fall into this category but I don't think about it because documentaries are the most "real" kind of film and are doing a good thing by notifying the rest of the world about conflict and struggle. But now I'm wondering which documentaries I've seen that may have rested too much on the ability of technology to bring out a sense of conflict in order to provide viewers with substance and plotline...

While reading Watching Wildlife, I thought it was really interesting to run into the same concept of what pictures really tell us that was in Reading National Geographic. I remember when I first picked up Reading National Geographic I thought it was going to be about the magazine and the cultures and places it covered. Yet I find it more interesting that the pictures and movies taken are a better reflection of the photographer/ filmmaker and their society than of what they are “capturing.” I think this idea is simple, yet fascinating. I had never really consciously examined pictures or movies to try and establish what really was going on. I loved the quote in Watching Wildlife by Julian Huxley when he says:

Man is a vain organism, and likes to stand surrounded by mirrors- magnifying mirrors if it be possible, but at any rate mirrors. And so we read the ideas of our own mind into the animals…as if birds or even spiders or newts were miniature human beings, in fancy dress no doubt, but with the thoughts of a twentieth-century inhabitant of London or New York. (25)

When I read this I laughed. I laughed because of how ridiculous it is to think that newts or spiders would think like us. Yet I also laughed because I know that I have done this and I know I am not the only one. I immediate thought of every kids’ movie and TV show I watched growing up and blamed them. In those shows animals are just like “us”; they talked, they walked, and could burst into song at any moment. Yet I then moved the blame I had was towards my parents. They had to have known what I was watching and did not stop me or my “misbeliefs.” I can remember distinctly as a kid being in the woods trying to talk to animals, and when they did not respond to me thinking how I must have run into the dumb one and needed to find a smarter animal that would understand me.
I also remember jumping off of fences thinking that if I really believed I would fly, and thought that I didn’t get anywhere because I didn’t have any pixie dust. I guess you could say that I was not the brightest crayon as a child. Yet seriously, it is dangerous how impressionable people can be. Before reading Reading National Geographic I had always considered National Geographic to be a “reputable” magazine. And to an extent it is. I had never really thought in depth about all the different ways of telling the truth. And in using those different ways or methods, it tells us more about the photographer than of the subject being captured. I think it’s intriguing to go back and have a second look at photographs and movies and try and establish what truly was going on, in the sense of what the photographs was doing. It is cool to examine the examiner, or critiquing the critiquer, by flipping the mirror and seeing what it shows us. It’s somewhat of a complete reversal from what was intended originally. Yet in all of these staged photos and movies, what the photographer was not able to control was our view of them. They had control of everything but themselves.

After contemplating today’s class, as well as the film we watched, I became vividly aware of how ethnographic films and cinema in general construct our reality. Is this because we are simply too lazy to do so on our own? I do not think so. Instead, I feel that the subtle process of crafting culture is such an organic and subconscious mechanism and it is almost as though we, as individuals, have little to no control. Not only do we not have control over creating or altering our culture, but we do not have any power of how our culture is perceived to the outside world. Cinema, and more specifically ethnographic films seem to have more power to shape our reality that we do.
Movements such as “salvage ethnography”, while culturally and socially responsible in theory, often did more to change or alter culture than to preserve it. This detrimental aspect of ethnographic films and the filmmaking process in general is often overlooked due to the seemingly transparent nature of the medium.
I see it as vital to the integrity of this type of film to understand that it is not a completely transparent medium and it often reflects the biases and goals of the creator. This notion brings to mind the famous argument that “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” This can be applied to the mindset that many ethnographic filmmakers approach their medium with. “Ethnographic films don’t erase or craft culture, people do this naturally.” Well, this is clearly an oversimplification of both issues. In fact, it is the relationship between the goals of some gun owners and the weapon that kills people. Similarly, it is the subtle but vital relationship between ethnographic films, the anthropologists who make them (complete with their own goals and biases), and the culture that they study. This type of dialectic is at the root of how our culture, as well as our perceptions of other cultures, is constructed.

I feel that I misread the film we watched in class today. Although I understood the filmmakers' point that Mayan ruins were reconstructed according to the visions of archaeologists, and that they were attempting to illustrate that people create many different meanings from the Mayan culture, I still thought that there was an underlying assumption that they knew more than the other people who they were informally interviewing. Maybe they weren't trying to make people look stupid, but some of their questions seemed condescending, and I felt discomfort much as I did while watching "Cannibal Tours". Some of the language they used was very loaded, I believe they referred to tourists as "parasites", and mentioned repeatedly how the forest was "peeled back" to expose the ruins that were then reconstructed by archaeologists, apparently with tourists in mind.
Of course, this is not the point, and perhaps I was missing the point of the film as I was caught up in these elements, but it is an interesting illustration of something else we discussed in class, which is how people interpret films very differently. I wonder how I read into situations so much in "real life", but I miss the subtle points of films. Is this a result of how I was taught how to watch film? I look forward to reading more about the hidden cultural assumptions in ethnographic and wildlife documentary film, and exploring the various methods of creating them.

Listen to NPR while returning from one of my enumerable errands I found my self listen to report on the “Java Jitter” song by this guy named Davido, who as it turned out had tried to sell his less then inspiring jingled to Starbucks. The jingle according to Davido is inspired by a real life interaction with a Starbucks barista who commented that a certain beverage gave her the “Java Jitter’s.” When I arrived at my home I looked up the video that Davido had mentioned on NPR as available on YouTube. The video that Davido made showed him being ejected from various Starbucks, according to Davido 250, while trying to sing his jingle accompanied by back up singer/dancers. Apparently Starbucks has a no video rule, who knew. While the video was interesting the jingle fell flat with lyrics such as,“put your buns on bake,” cue bad visual pun witha close up on the dancers butts. But it wasn’t the stylings of this Wayne Newton look alike that made me feel that this was an important subject, it was the denial of Starbucks that they were in any way involved with this as a marketing scheme. According to the interviewer on NPR Starbucks denied any involvement with Davido, but today, with the media infiltration of places like facebook, myspace, and YouTube can we believe this. The advertising boards of major companies are using these media as a way to get their name out there. In writing this I may be also playing into the scheme calling attention to this fact, in that if Starbucks is behind this video then they have succeeded in what they sent out to do, get people talking. I feel that this kind of advertising gags people who don’t want to engage in this sort of consumer dialect as it makes us afraid that the conversations that we have with each other are only fueling the consumer market.
"Java Jitter"

While watching Cannibal Tours I found myself feeling an unanticipated solidarity with the Papua New Guineans. I admit that just about everything in their daily life is very different from mine, but one aspect of the film was very familiar. That is having to deal with ignorant tourists. I grew up on a resort island that sees its population swell from 15 thousand people to over 100,000 people in the summer. Not only is there suddenly six times more people on the Island, but the vast majority of them seem to be completely lost. It seems as though they believe that being on vacation gives free pass to ignore even the most basic rules of civil society. These violations of common courtesy range from the annoying (like driving 15mph to take pictures out the window or stopping all together to in the middle of the road to look at a map), to the dangerous (like driving a moped in the middle of the road or walking into the street without so much as glancing up). I’m sure that the much greater degree of cultural difference between tourists to my island and myself, and tourists to Papua New Guinea and native Papua New Guineans gives them a much longer list of complaints. The film shows some examples, such as tourists treating the Papua New Guineans like dolls to position as they like for photographs, that I found absolutely shocking. At least back home I know that there are positive outcomes to tourism that allow me to tolerate the summer visitors. Unlike the tourists in the film, tourists to my Island contribute a lot to the local economy. The amount of taxes paid to my small island by summer residents for their multimillion-dollar vacation homes insures that we never have to worry about our town budgets. Many year-round residents also rely on tourism for their own income. One of the more disturbing scenes in Cannibal Tours was one in which an American woman is being instructed by another tourist about how to haggle with a Papua New Guinean artisan. She is told to ask for a “second price” even though she comments on how cheap it already is. I don’t mean to put myself on the same level as the Papua New Guineans in the film, but I know that ignorant tourists can be extremely frustrating and can only begin to imagine how the Papua New Guineans feel.