It is not unknown that advertisements are customized to create needs where they do not exist. They are tailored to make viewers feel incomplete without that product. Yet (and therefore) the best adds are those that deceive consumers onto believing that these implied 'needs' are real and genuine.
After industrialization , consumerism was bound to be the result. In between these two phenomenon are the commercial advertisements that control the interaction (and traffic) between the industry and the consumer. They play the role of traffic lights and policemen (with the more corrupt ones exercising more power), who are noticed yet not scrutinized. These street signals are metaphors of ads that determine the direction and density of traffic to a certain destination (the product).
The visual language in designed to target the vulnerable points of male and female sexuality in most cases. They target "the lust of the flesh" and "the lust of the eyes" , manipulating consumers into believing that the products and services being portrayed will satisfy these "needs". The fact is 'desire' is not the same as 'need'. The products probably satisfy desires, not necessarily needs.
The challenge for ads today is to fool the consumer into believing that he is not being fooled. The ads are forced to pretend that they are revealing more than they conceal. The visual language is the vehicle of these internal dynamics,but like a vehicle it does not reveal the mechanism. Only the end product of the attractive visual ad is shown (except for those who take the trouble to find out the process).
The visual language of ads serve either as:
a) A tool to know OR
b) An excuse for ignorance
Consumers are thrown (always) into a realm (the media) where either they control the influence of the perceived visual on them of it controls them. This interaction is not always a partnership. Often it is a subtle warfare that is constantly 'on'. At this junction, I am reminded of a client who asked his web-designer to create an interface whose concept would be derived from a book titled "Art Of War" that appropriates East- Asian strategies of martial arts to business management.I realized that this book has not only succeeded in advertising itself but has managed to enter the method of ads as well.
The challenge for consumers is to find out the mechanism of control in the information systems from within, as being 'in' the media is not a matter of choice anymore.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
What has this world done to us?
You know you are pretending
And I know that too.
But we pretend to be genuine
Or maybe we are trying to
When is the mask going to come off?
You don’t want to remove yours
Neither I mine
But haven’t we ever wondered why?
Perhaps you are afraid
Of being betrayed
Of again going through
The pain that you just got over
The pain is still there
But now in your mind
Warning you to defend yourself
With your mask as your shield.
I see it, I know it,
I too have experienced it
But I don’t tell you a word,
Neither do I ask you a thing.
We both walk our ways
Knowing yet pretending not to.
You know you are pretending
And I know that too.
But we pretend to be genuine
Or maybe we are trying to
When is the mask going to come off?
You don’t want to remove yours
Neither I mine
But haven’t we ever wondered why?
Perhaps you are afraid
Of being betrayed
Of again going through
The pain that you just got over
The pain is still there
But now in your mind
Warning you to defend yourself
With your mask as your shield.
I see it, I know it,
I too have experienced it
But I don’t tell you a word,
Neither do I ask you a thing.
We both walk our ways
Knowing yet pretending not to.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Criticism
Article: Jacqueline Rose(b. 1943) ‘Sexuality in the Field of Vision’
The theory at stake in this article lies in the first sentence of this extract.
"[…] Freud often related the question of sexuality to that of visual representation."
The readers are initiated into the issues surrounding Freud’s theories with(in) the realm(s) of sexuality in a manner that places us on a fence where either side is black/white while the path(fence) is grey.
As the reader continues tracing this path, it appears to be a metaphor of the next sentence.
“Describing the child’s difficult journey into adult sexual life,…”
This grey path would correspond with Jacqueline’s opinions as a representation of “…..the complexity of an essentially visual space.” On this path the concept of sexuality is like beam-balance that is tilted more under the load of ‘subjectivity’ than the side of ‘content’. Since subjectivity gains more credit (here), it is only logical that, “The relationship between viewer and scene is always one of fracture, partial identification, pleasure and distrust.” Thus the viewer ends up creating his identity based on his response to the ‘scene’(according to Jacqueline Rose). I would like to stress the nature of creating being a process within which ‘identity’,(according to Rose) seeks to position itself when its very being is a process.
Jacqueline views Freud’s theories as an analogy of ‘sexual identity being an imagination.’
If ‘for Freud’, ‘ our sexual identities as male or female, our confidence in language as true or false, and our security in the image we judge as perfect of flawed, are fantasies’ then his theories are subject to the same analysis and thus fall into the category of fantasies.
Rose deliberately or unconsciously doesn’t draw this conclusion but chooses to turn ‘ these archaic moments’ into ‘ theoretical prototypes’ to subject the presence of the sexual in representation to new interpretations. She uses Freud’s implications to conclude that the ‘chief drives’ of art that address this issue is “to expose the fixed nature of sexual identity as a fantasy and, in the same gesture, to trouble, break up, or rupture the visual field before our eyes.’
Ironically, the statements she uses as a base to justify her conclusion throws this very conclusion into the category of ‘fantasies. Either she is aware of this and/yet chooses to move further or this fact has escaped her notice. This ambiguity will hopefully be solved in the remaining article.
From the way I see it, the term ‘staged’ implies something that is manifested in the physical. Rose then asserts that the ‘staged’ happens only under the condition that ‘that staging has already taken place’. She doesn’t specify where this staging should have taken place. This causes me to conclude that the ‘where’ refers to ‘the visual field’.
Rose asserts that the ‘encounter between psychoanalysis and artistic practice’ happens because it has already happened numerous times. So, Is the difference in this final/intermediate encounter and the past ones the ‘place’ where it occurs? Where it turns from a ‘happening’ into a ‘representation’? But again, how can the two be separated when they both belong to the category of ‘fantasies’ according to Freud’s theory stated earlier. It is evident that Rose sees this fact in her statement, “It gives back to repetition its proper meaning and status” as the “constant pressure of something hidden but not forgotten.” At this junction I believe that it more appropriate for this statement to be “… the constant pressure of something hidden, perhaps even forgotten but not erased…”
Rose appears to believe that this hidden realm will come into focus only when the visual field where “our normal forms” of self-recognition (which I prefer to call self-creation) take place, is blurred.
Rose does not elaborate on the term “normal forms”. Are these normal forms objective or subjective? Are they also subject to “a staging that has already taken place”?
Then Rose raises three issues simultaneously. Strangely they appear unrelated to each other. Possibly Rose is attempting to pull three chords from three different directions and knot them at a point.
The third chord displays Rose’s consideration of Freud’s demonstration that history is not “….some truth to be deciphered behind the chain of associations” but rather it “resides within that chain and in the process of emergence”. She propagates Freud’s redefinition of the term ‘history’ as something that lies within the process underlying the chain of language.
Rose further substantiates Lacan’s analysis of Freud’s demonstration. Lacan viewed the chain of language as individual units that come together to produce meaning. Lacan states that its truth belongs to that phenomenon that brings the units together and not to some external reference.
“Language rests on a continuum which gets locked into discrete units of which sexual difference is only the most strongly marked. The fixing of language and the fixing of sexual identity go hand in hand; they rely on each other and share the same forms of instability and risk.”
Thus Rose implies that sexual identity is a product of language and therefore cannot have an individual status (identity).She is also hinting that language is highly dependent on sexual identity to establish its nature.
The theory at stake in this article lies in the first sentence of this extract.
"[…] Freud often related the question of sexuality to that of visual representation."
The readers are initiated into the issues surrounding Freud’s theories with(in) the realm(s) of sexuality in a manner that places us on a fence where either side is black/white while the path(fence) is grey.
As the reader continues tracing this path, it appears to be a metaphor of the next sentence.
“Describing the child’s difficult journey into adult sexual life,…”
This grey path would correspond with Jacqueline’s opinions as a representation of “…..the complexity of an essentially visual space.” On this path the concept of sexuality is like beam-balance that is tilted more under the load of ‘subjectivity’ than the side of ‘content’. Since subjectivity gains more credit (here), it is only logical that, “The relationship between viewer and scene is always one of fracture, partial identification, pleasure and distrust.” Thus the viewer ends up creating his identity based on his response to the ‘scene’(according to Jacqueline Rose). I would like to stress the nature of creating being a process within which ‘identity’,(according to Rose) seeks to position itself when its very being is a process.
Jacqueline views Freud’s theories as an analogy of ‘sexual identity being an imagination.’
If ‘for Freud’, ‘ our sexual identities as male or female, our confidence in language as true or false, and our security in the image we judge as perfect of flawed, are fantasies’ then his theories are subject to the same analysis and thus fall into the category of fantasies.
Rose deliberately or unconsciously doesn’t draw this conclusion but chooses to turn ‘ these archaic moments’ into ‘ theoretical prototypes’ to subject the presence of the sexual in representation to new interpretations. She uses Freud’s implications to conclude that the ‘chief drives’ of art that address this issue is “to expose the fixed nature of sexual identity as a fantasy and, in the same gesture, to trouble, break up, or rupture the visual field before our eyes.’
Ironically, the statements she uses as a base to justify her conclusion throws this very conclusion into the category of ‘fantasies. Either she is aware of this and/yet chooses to move further or this fact has escaped her notice. This ambiguity will hopefully be solved in the remaining article.
From the way I see it, the term ‘staged’ implies something that is manifested in the physical. Rose then asserts that the ‘staged’ happens only under the condition that ‘that staging has already taken place’. She doesn’t specify where this staging should have taken place. This causes me to conclude that the ‘where’ refers to ‘the visual field’.
Rose asserts that the ‘encounter between psychoanalysis and artistic practice’ happens because it has already happened numerous times. So, Is the difference in this final/intermediate encounter and the past ones the ‘place’ where it occurs? Where it turns from a ‘happening’ into a ‘representation’? But again, how can the two be separated when they both belong to the category of ‘fantasies’ according to Freud’s theory stated earlier. It is evident that Rose sees this fact in her statement, “It gives back to repetition its proper meaning and status” as the “constant pressure of something hidden but not forgotten.” At this junction I believe that it more appropriate for this statement to be “… the constant pressure of something hidden, perhaps even forgotten but not erased…”
Rose appears to believe that this hidden realm will come into focus only when the visual field where “our normal forms” of self-recognition (which I prefer to call self-creation) take place, is blurred.
Rose does not elaborate on the term “normal forms”. Are these normal forms objective or subjective? Are they also subject to “a staging that has already taken place”?
Then Rose raises three issues simultaneously. Strangely they appear unrelated to each other. Possibly Rose is attempting to pull three chords from three different directions and knot them at a point.
The third chord displays Rose’s consideration of Freud’s demonstration that history is not “….some truth to be deciphered behind the chain of associations” but rather it “resides within that chain and in the process of emergence”. She propagates Freud’s redefinition of the term ‘history’ as something that lies within the process underlying the chain of language.
Rose further substantiates Lacan’s analysis of Freud’s demonstration. Lacan viewed the chain of language as individual units that come together to produce meaning. Lacan states that its truth belongs to that phenomenon that brings the units together and not to some external reference.
“Language rests on a continuum which gets locked into discrete units of which sexual difference is only the most strongly marked. The fixing of language and the fixing of sexual identity go hand in hand; they rely on each other and share the same forms of instability and risk.”
Thus Rose implies that sexual identity is a product of language and therefore cannot have an individual status (identity).She is also hinting that language is highly dependent on sexual identity to establish its nature.
Critical Comment
“A work conceived, perceived and received in its integrally symbolic nature is a text.”
Roland Barthes(1915-1980) ‘ From Work to Text’
This is an attempt to come to an understanding of the term ‘work’ in this definition of it.
Is a work a product assumed to be finished , having gone through a process? Since… perhaps it may not have been released from it. It symbolizes a time period by its nature of being and having been. Apart from the time and space it represents, it symbolizes the process it was ( and is) subject to , not excluding future allegations. Since it represents more than a history of associations attached to it by continuing to exist in an environment that uses it , ‘Use’ in the sense of giving it a reason to still exist, can this ‘work’ be ‘conceived, perceived and received in its integrally symbolic nature’? If this nature lies only in the fact that it undergoes these three processes, be it in any context … probably then it becomes a text.
If its integral symbolism lies in the material that constitutes it, then every material understood and experienced as what it is is a work turned into text.
Neha Jiandani
3rd yr BVA
Art History Dept.
Chirtra Kala Parishath
26/4/07
Roland Barthes(1915-1980) ‘ From Work to Text’
This is an attempt to come to an understanding of the term ‘work’ in this definition of it.
Is a work a product assumed to be finished , having gone through a process? Since… perhaps it may not have been released from it. It symbolizes a time period by its nature of being and having been. Apart from the time and space it represents, it symbolizes the process it was ( and is) subject to , not excluding future allegations. Since it represents more than a history of associations attached to it by continuing to exist in an environment that uses it , ‘Use’ in the sense of giving it a reason to still exist, can this ‘work’ be ‘conceived, perceived and received in its integrally symbolic nature’? If this nature lies only in the fact that it undergoes these three processes, be it in any context … probably then it becomes a text.
If its integral symbolism lies in the material that constitutes it, then every material understood and experienced as what it is is a work turned into text.
Neha Jiandani
3rd yr BVA
Art History Dept.
Chirtra Kala Parishath
26/4/07
A Museum Visit
Creative writing
If a work of art needs only to have some characteristics that classifies art, be it in the contemporary or conventional sense, then I am justified in selecting any object present in this museum (this satisfying some of the requirements ). Now questions arise concerning the objects that were installed here to serve a specific function (which is neither artistic nor aesthetic).Not only these , but the very structure, architecture being an integral part of the museum- could they acquire the status of ‘art objects’? Considering even the humans who are strolling around looking in awe at objects whose status they have probably equaled ( if this argument stands) only by their physical entry into this structure even before setting their eyes on any object.
Knowing ( in accordance with ‘common’ sense ) that this argument would not stand , I used the word ‘some’ and not ‘one’ in the opening sentence.
Right now I sit before an object( a bulletin board) that visibly satisfies not only some but many conventional characteristics of art . Apart from being within a frame , its got shapes, lines , tones, text and even con-text. But it stands here not as a work of art which is too meager and clichéd a position . It stands here as a Triumphant Revolutionary having pulled down the very structure that supports it. Being on an easel, it has destroyed the identity of this place. It has proved that works in a museum are not art works but processes. Therefore if every frame is a process then this structure is not a museum.
Even this work on paper ‘being’ created by me is supported by this Revolutionary( the Bulletin Board).
Neha Jiandani
3rd yr BVA
Art History Dept.
Chitra Kala Parishath
25/4/07
If a work of art needs only to have some characteristics that classifies art, be it in the contemporary or conventional sense, then I am justified in selecting any object present in this museum (this satisfying some of the requirements ). Now questions arise concerning the objects that were installed here to serve a specific function (which is neither artistic nor aesthetic).Not only these , but the very structure, architecture being an integral part of the museum- could they acquire the status of ‘art objects’? Considering even the humans who are strolling around looking in awe at objects whose status they have probably equaled ( if this argument stands) only by their physical entry into this structure even before setting their eyes on any object.
Knowing ( in accordance with ‘common’ sense ) that this argument would not stand , I used the word ‘some’ and not ‘one’ in the opening sentence.
Right now I sit before an object( a bulletin board) that visibly satisfies not only some but many conventional characteristics of art . Apart from being within a frame , its got shapes, lines , tones, text and even con-text. But it stands here not as a work of art which is too meager and clichéd a position . It stands here as a Triumphant Revolutionary having pulled down the very structure that supports it. Being on an easel, it has destroyed the identity of this place. It has proved that works in a museum are not art works but processes. Therefore if every frame is a process then this structure is not a museum.
Even this work on paper ‘being’ created by me is supported by this Revolutionary( the Bulletin Board).
Neha Jiandani
3rd yr BVA
Art History Dept.
Chitra Kala Parishath
25/4/07
Friday, December 29, 2006
Cosmopolitanism
The word "cosmopolitan" seems so common today. It frequently appears in newspaper articles and magazines. Even the name of a particular magazine is "Cosmopolitan". Though we are so familiar with the word … what does it really mean?
The idea of "cosmopolitanism" is not very different from the idea of perfection. An ideal that every person (on an individual level) strives to achieve. But this can be achieved only to a certain extent since perfection itself is limitless. I would define "cosmopolitanism" as "social perfection at a global level". By "social perfection" I mean an unbiased mindset of people towards other people irrespective of their background, social status,history or appearance. How feasible is such an idea as this? Can one look at a so called " criminal" without any prejudice? Can a person look at his enemy as one not very different from himself?
Can we honestly call ourselves a cosmopolitan society? What about other issues that seem to be negating cosmopolitanism- like terrorism , which has caused unimaginable mistrust and fear. The atmosphere is filled with constant suspicion of all that which is unfamiliar and strange- be it people or objects.
In airports all over the world , security has been tightened to its limit since the increase of terror attacks. Every passenger is under suspicion. Tough this is inevitable for security reasons, can it be called cosmopolitan? The kinds of thoughts , feelings and emotions that run through the mind of every passenger while he is rigourously and meticulously checked , can they be termed as a result of cosmopolitanism?
"Cosmopolitanism" as of now is an ideal that the society is striving or wanting to achieve. There are numerous talks, conferences and articles expressing this common desire among highly conscious people. But has this fantastic ideal materialized at a global level?
The word "cosmopolitan" seems so common today. It frequently appears in newspaper articles and magazines. Even the name of a particular magazine is "Cosmopolitan". Though we are so familiar with the word … what does it really mean?
The idea of "cosmopolitanism" is not very different from the idea of perfection. An ideal that every person (on an individual level) strives to achieve. But this can be achieved only to a certain extent since perfection itself is limitless. I would define "cosmopolitanism" as "social perfection at a global level". By "social perfection" I mean an unbiased mindset of people towards other people irrespective of their background, social status,history or appearance. How feasible is such an idea as this? Can one look at a so called " criminal" without any prejudice? Can a person look at his enemy as one not very different from himself?
Can we honestly call ourselves a cosmopolitan society? What about other issues that seem to be negating cosmopolitanism- like terrorism , which has caused unimaginable mistrust and fear. The atmosphere is filled with constant suspicion of all that which is unfamiliar and strange- be it people or objects.
In airports all over the world , security has been tightened to its limit since the increase of terror attacks. Every passenger is under suspicion. Tough this is inevitable for security reasons, can it be called cosmopolitan? The kinds of thoughts , feelings and emotions that run through the mind of every passenger while he is rigourously and meticulously checked , can they be termed as a result of cosmopolitanism?
"Cosmopolitanism" as of now is an ideal that the society is striving or wanting to achieve. There are numerous talks, conferences and articles expressing this common desire among highly conscious people. But has this fantastic ideal materialized at a global level?
How Conditioned Are We?
What are the factors that cause conditioning?
To what extent can we free ourselves from this conditioning?
Creativity- as the erasure of conditioning.
How do we overcome conditioned thinking?
Lets start with human babies. Apart from genetic make up, the needs of it condition its behaviour. As it grows up its environment and society causes the second level of conditioning to occur. So now- apart from the natural or human traits(not anything new ofcourse) there is further conditioning caused by the surroundings. Interestingly, the human traits ( 1 st level of conditioning) are erased by the conditioning by culture apparently to make women " lady-like" and men "gentlemanly". Where these two terms are relative as their meaning, symbolism and implications are different in different cultures.
Come to think of it , almost everything we do is conditioned. We wake up , brush our teeth, shower, eat, read the paper, work , eat and sleep(superficially speaking) . it would be interesting to know who set this pattern. Why this order? How much of what we do is natural or genetic conditioning and how much of it is cultural conditioning?
Then comes the third stage of personal conditioning caused by past experiences, phobias and individual thought processes.
Conditioning is an inevitable phenomenon. As long as we live there will be constant conditioning and reconditioning like the ongoing process of technological growth.
How far can we free ourselves from this conditioning? Its hardly even possible to become aware of all the conditioning in the first place.I believe it cannot be undone completely but can be redone partially.
Mere awareness of this state is probably the first step to creativity( in the pure sense of the word). Creativity is the suspension of the conditioned state through an unconditioned(pure) state. I believe we often get into this state but it doesnt last very long becuase of the predominance of our conditioned patterns .
Overcoming conditioning is merely doing the unobvious. A drastic change in the way we think.Thinking beyond what we see, hear and read. A fresh look. A new view- the birth of creativity.
What are the factors that cause conditioning?
To what extent can we free ourselves from this conditioning?
Creativity- as the erasure of conditioning.
How do we overcome conditioned thinking?
Lets start with human babies. Apart from genetic make up, the needs of it condition its behaviour. As it grows up its environment and society causes the second level of conditioning to occur. So now- apart from the natural or human traits(not anything new ofcourse) there is further conditioning caused by the surroundings. Interestingly, the human traits ( 1 st level of conditioning) are erased by the conditioning by culture apparently to make women " lady-like" and men "gentlemanly". Where these two terms are relative as their meaning, symbolism and implications are different in different cultures.
Come to think of it , almost everything we do is conditioned. We wake up , brush our teeth, shower, eat, read the paper, work , eat and sleep(superficially speaking) . it would be interesting to know who set this pattern. Why this order? How much of what we do is natural or genetic conditioning and how much of it is cultural conditioning?
Then comes the third stage of personal conditioning caused by past experiences, phobias and individual thought processes.
Conditioning is an inevitable phenomenon. As long as we live there will be constant conditioning and reconditioning like the ongoing process of technological growth.
How far can we free ourselves from this conditioning? Its hardly even possible to become aware of all the conditioning in the first place.I believe it cannot be undone completely but can be redone partially.
Mere awareness of this state is probably the first step to creativity( in the pure sense of the word). Creativity is the suspension of the conditioned state through an unconditioned(pure) state. I believe we often get into this state but it doesnt last very long becuase of the predominance of our conditioned patterns .
Overcoming conditioning is merely doing the unobvious. A drastic change in the way we think.Thinking beyond what we see, hear and read. A fresh look. A new view- the birth of creativity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)