- Had you ever used a blog before attending RTF 305? IF SO, WHAT WAS ITS FOCUS?
Yes. An online psychology class I took at a previous college required us to give our input on various topics we covered in a blog format.
I also published one for a while that covered different ideas and ramblings that I came across
- What were the positive aspects of using the blogs in the course?
They help reinforce concepts discussed in lecture/readings
They forced me to organize my thoughts on the class concepts in a more structured manner
- What difficulties did you encounter in using the blogs? (both technical and conceptual)
The prompts were quite straightforward and the blogging platform easy to use.
- If you had difficulties in using the blog, how were you able to overcome the difficulties you encountered?
I found it useful to remind myself with visual reminders of deadlines/ print out the prompts so I didn't miss them or forget to write them on time
- What types of blog prompts were more or less interesting or difficult? (provide an example and rationale)
The studio system and radio industry prompts were less interesting, mostly because it seemed like a verbatim regurgitation of facts / a list of things read.
The ones about Film structure, types of shots, and advertising were more interesting to me, because it seemed more inviting to open ended thought/discussion type writing instead of just a list of facts
- Would you recommend using a blog in future course, either in RTF 305 and other undergraduate courses at UT-Austin? (explain why..)
I believe the blog was a useful tool, but could be revised/improved upon.
- What would you suggest to change or improve the blogging experience in the future?
Make the blogs more involved, less about simply regurgitating information, in order to make them even more useful as a study tool. Also, I feel students would be more on time with the blogs/interested in them if they were more involved
Advertising pervades the life of every person living in the developed world. With the ever intensifying spiral of intensity and density of advertising present, advertisers must seek out ways to "cut though the clutter" to make sure they are effectively getting their message across. I recently came across a campaign put together by the firm TJDR for Nulaid eggs that I feel is an exemplary use of aesthetic appeals (in this case, to humor) in order to grab the viewers' attention.
I believe this set of ads is powerful because it sets itself apart. It has an interesting combination of visual aesthetic appeal, (a sort of nouveaux art aura that many ads contain) and appeals to humor. Such a combination is useful when the goal is to get the viewer to remember your brand.
The advertisements also bring in an appeal to curiosity - after all, it's not every day that one sees an egg guised as Kim Jong-il. This drawing in effect of the curiosity appeal paired with the impressions left by aesthetic appeals help set the platform for an effective advertisement.
Many times in campaigns like this, viewers will take up an interest in the ads and follow the ads themselves, in this case, perhaps to see what infamous figure the egg will caricaturize next, which leads to even more impressions for the Nulaid egg company.
In overview, these two appeals work because they strike a chord within the viewer. People are naturally curious beings, so an ad that contains a curious element will naturally strike an interest in the viewer, which has the obvious advantage of increasing the attention the add gets.
In general, advertising appeals work because they strike a harmonious chord with the viewer.
Aesthetic appeals work on the same level, for the same goal. Humans naturally find certain patterns, shapes (i.e. the golden rectangle) and colors, wether obvious, or abstract appealing. Ads that aim for aesthetic appeal try to catch the reader's eye by through visually attractive content.
Aesthetic appeal ads:
are pleasing to the senses (most notedly visual)
appeal to taste, fashion, humor, etc
are often used (along/paired with sex appeal) in clothing and car ads,
The Lion king is based on the three act structure:
Act I:
Act one develops the setting of the story and the origin of the problem and ensuing action. Scar, Mufasa's brother is bitter about the fact that he has essentially been cut off from the throne with the birth of Simba. The first act ends after the death of Mufasa with Simba's decision to run away because he believes he is responsible for the death of his father.
Act II:
As problems escalate under scar's regime, Simba is hides himself away from his past.
In act two, Rafiki discovers that simba is alive, and the act ends with Nala's decision to go find him.
Act III:
The reuniting of Simba and Nala sparks love, but also brings Simba's past fully back to his mind. Through Nala's reasoning with him, Simba decides to let go of the guilt he's held on to and go back to fight scar and avenge his father's death. The final climax comes very near to the end of the film (about 6-7 minutes from the end) when Simba finds out the truth about his father's death and actually fights scar to take back the kingdom, which leads to the resolution of the story where Simba becomes king and peace returns to the Pride Lands.
One of the characteristics of the TV sitcom is that patterns are repeated throughout the run of the sitcom. This repetition of patterns may present itself in the fact that the main characters often finds themselves getting into the same situations, making the same mistakes, etc. Often, the plot of an episode will follow a familiar shell outline, the structure of with is filled in with changes in whom the main character interacts with, or other details switched, but the overall progression of the episode follows a very familiar pattern. This often leads to two other characteristics of the sitcom - many sitcoms end about where they begin, and there tends to be relatively little character arch.
This familiarity, though it gives to predictability, allows the viewer to know what to expect from the episode. The interest in following the episodes is in seeing the particularities of each situation, not necessarily in following the progression of the protagonist's character.
The TV sitcom How I met your Mother presents these aspects. Throughout Ted's lengthy recollections of the events that led up to his meeting of the mother of his children, he often gets into, or out of, or back into a relationship with one person or another. The episodes present sequences of the stages in these relationships, and also presents a repeating side show of sorts in documenting Barney Stinson's, the self-assured womanizer, many different encounters and attempts with various women. Throughout the progression of the sitcom, the status and/or position of the different characters may change, but overall they remain largely the same, operating in the same roles they began with.
Although a cartoon, Disney's The Lion King still uses the same concepts of "camera shots" in the animation that are used in other films.
The Long Shot as Orientation Shot:
This long shot showing pride rock, the surrounding area, and some of its inhabitants makes use of the wide view available when using this technique to orient and familiarize the viewer with the setting.
Medium Shot as Relationship Information Shot:
The medium shot is often used to portray visually the relationship between characters in a story. In this medium shot, a decent amount of space is still available on the screen, although not as much as in the long shot. Even with this space, the directory chose to place Rafiki and Mufasa close to each other, to symbolize their friendship and trust for one another. Even in this portrayal of friendship, there is still a hierarchy of power. Mufasa is taller and placed on the right of the shot, both of which symbolize his position.
Closeup as marker of detail, emotion, and feeling:
Because the details of objects, facial expressions, etc. are more easily viewed in close-up shots, this technique if often used to reveal details and focus on emotions and feelings of the characters in an "up close and personal" way. In this shot, Simba and Nala look lovingly at each other, and their facial expressions, easily seen in this close up shot, allows the viewer to better pick up on the emotions they are sharing. In the context of the story, this shot also helps aid to the feeling of closure and resolve of conflict, and pulls the viewer into the happiness of Simba, Nala, and the rest of the Pride Lands that are now free from Scar's regime.
One of the main aspects of the studio system that developed in the late 1920s and early thirties was vertical integration - when a large conglomerate corporation owns key businesses in different but related markets so that they have the ability to handle many different parts of production "in house" and save money.
In vertical integration, the studios would own their own production crews, distribution systems and chains of movie theaters.
Because the production crews and directors were "part of the family" of the film company, distinct styles came to be associated with the different major film corporations.
Regulation increased in response to the mergers taking place, forcing the studios to part with some of their stakes in different part of the production process, particularly movie theaters.
A new wave of mergers started in the 80s and 90s when the industry's regulatory reigns were once again loosened. Because of this, the modern film system in some ways reflects the old, especially in terms of vertical integration.
Because of vertical integration, movie franchises from film appear on TV and vice versa, such as the creation of a Simpsons movie, Movies based on Marvel Comics, and a Lion King cartoon series airing on ABC Family (which shows yet another example of cross ownership and conglomeration because disney owns ABC)
The studio system developed an organization based on cross-ownership and conglomeration, namely in the form of vertical integration. This played a key role in the way movies were produced, what movies were produced, and how film studios are organized today.
All in the Family and George Lopez shine a light on important issues, involving prejudice, bigotry, and other serious social events. However there are significant differences on how the two shows bring these issues to the forefront.
All in the Family uses the character Archie Bunker as a mouthpiece to represent the countries more perverse opinions and attitudes towards minorities. The audience is meant to relate to the son-in-law when he admonishes Archie. Often times, this strategy backfires because the audience relates to Archie as an "anti-hero" or "lovable bigot" (link on this at the bottom). The George Lopez show aims to showcase the same issues but has the advantage of realizing social issues from within the minority group. This allows the audience to relate to George Lopez, preventing them from seeing the oppressed class as "the other" but instead more like themselves. So even though the desire is still to use a character driven comedy to encourage the audience to change their opinion is the same in both, The George Lopez show approaches it in a fresh and effective manner.
Regulation and government intervention was arguably the most important and influential factor in the shaping of radio in the 1920s because of its role in producing a cohesive, standards based radio industry controlled by American companies and interests.
The force of regulation and government intervention works to build cohesiveness by setting up specific stipulations and standards for how an industry or other operation should carry out its business. It helps put competing businesses on the same page so that their competition becomes constructive rather than destructive. Imagine if every electric company used a different standard for the voltage and regulation of the electricity it provided - it would bring great chaos and disorder because many electronic devices wouldn't work the same, or even work at all, depending on what provider the consumer was using. The regulations set up by governments can operate much in the same way that train tracks work for trains; the tracks may seem firm and restricting if you looked at just the tracks themselves, but they actually allow the trains to operate effectively and safely.
This is a key reason why government regulation and intervention was so important to the formation of the radio industry. When many more people started jumping on the radio bandwagon and radio stations and transmitters became more widespread, the problems grew just as rapidly. Transmitters were being operated in frequencies too close to one another at too close of a distance, causing overlap and interference that often led to both stations being practically unlistenable. Naturally, however, neither of a set of stations involved in such a conflict would be willing to just yield to the other(s), for fear of being taken over by the competition. Other problems included amateur radio operators interrupting official government, nautical, and corporate transmissions, at times in the form of fake distress signals <Radio Act, Radio Act 1927.> To solve these problems, the US Government increased their control over radio and licensed transmitters, defined the radio band (overall range of frequencies to be used for radio,) told the owners what frequency each could broadcast on, at what power they could do so, and even limited the times of day at which some transmitters could broadcast. The government also fostered the growth of an early radio industry owned by American Corporations when it forced foreign interests out of the US, such as when Italian Marconi was "forced to sell its American assets to General Electric." (Media Now, 160) This action in turned helped to foster the right conditions for the main American radio interests to set up a patent pool in 1920, which helped to standardize radio equipment, which brought even greater inter-operability and unification to the industry.
It is well known that the images and ideas presented in the Media can have a strong impact on the views of society; this phenomena can sometimes have quite damaging effects. The concept of cultivation theory allows me to better understand the effects of images of terrorism presented in media and how they "cultivate" an irrational fear of Muslim and Middle Eastern people.
Cultivation theory asserts that one's exposure to the various forms of mass media can effect one's world view. The "mediated reality" of popular TV, for example, can be very different than what really goes on off screen in terms of prevalence. As one takes in the images and ideas presented in the media, the frequency of these images makes them seem common or ordinary, so the viewer begins to assume that what he experiences through the media is comparable to what actually happens on average to people throughout the world.
One example that helps me understand the concept of cultivation theory is the unqualified fear of Muslims and other Middle Eastern people in the United States. Since the 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers, increased attention has been given to terror and terroristic groups by the media. Countless press articles, television news stories, TV Shows (such as The Unit and 24), and movies (Black Hawn Down, Jarhead, Hurt Locker, etc) have been dedicated to this idea of fighting terror. The overwhelming presence of the types of images by the Media has caused many Americans to develop an overwhelming fear of Muslims and Middle Eastern peoples because it greatly over exaggerates the implied number of people who take part in these terroristic acts and makes the acts themselves seem much more common than they are. Sadly, to many people in America, every Muslim (or not even Muslims, but Indians, Hindus, and, as the video below shows, Sikhs) in an airport is a possible terrorist and a threat to public safety. This unfortunate happenstance, though regretfully common, is not grounded in reality. Besides the fact that the Muslim extremists responsible for the 9/11 attacks and other acts of terror are just a very small group of people in the Muslim world with ideas and objectives that in now way reflect the view of the great overwhelming majority (and not the mention that this extremist sub-sect is not the only group responsible for terroristic acts), many groups of of people that have been racially profiled and discriminated against because of the effects of cultivation theory aren't even Muslim!
Hegemony is the process through which a dominant, influential group in a society spreads its ideology to the rest of the populace - not by force - but by introducing ideas in a more discrete manner so that these concepts become adopted by society at large as "common knowledge" or accepted norms. Media plays an extremely influential role in this process, as can be evidenced by a simple survey of the ideas and practices of the people one comes in contact with every day.
The basis for this idea is nothing new, and has been in existence and practiced in some form or another throughout history. Although media, in becoming one of the main vehicles for hegemony, has changed the mode through which hegemony has been carried out in more recent generations, the process remains the same. The great Roman poet Ovid, who died in the first century A.D, wrote that, "dripping water hollows out stone, not through force but through persistence." Parallel to this, Thomas Hardy writes in his novel, Tess of the d'Urbervilles, "The constant dripping of water, however slight, can wash away a stone."
These two literary references capture the main concept of how hegemony works: instead of using brute force tactics, the influential, persistent process of spreading ideas in a way so that they become accepted societal norms is a tool with limitless potential that can reshape an entire social landscape.
The first thirty seconds of the narrative below in a trailer for Inception, is prevalent to this discussion on the power of ideas:
What's the most resilient parasite? - An idea.
A single idea from the human mind can build cities.
An idea can transform the world - and rewrite all the rules.
If an idea is such a powerful phenomena, even in just the mind of one person, then how powerful of a force is created when the same idea becomes shared and accepted by an entire society? Here we begin to see just how powerful and influential hegemony is.
When one group possesses the power and ability to spread their ideology through hegemony, the results are more effective and influential than trying to command the same amount of control through brute force and scare tactics, because the ideas are taken hold of and rooted in the minds of individuals, instead of just carried through in observance when there is someone overhead looking down with a "big stick."
As eluded to earlier through the two literary works, hegemony works though persistence and consistency. Over time, because of the prevalence of these ideas is at a level where it is next to impossible for one to avoid exposure, the ideas of the dominant group are imprinted on the minds of society. Because they are constantly surrounded by whatever the idea, belief, concept, or practice may be, society becomes desensitized to these. Once the "shock factor" is removed, a door is then opened for actions or ideas once deemed immoral, unsound, or otherwise unacceptable to become, well, accepted. In effect, hegemony works the "rewrite the rules" of a society, so to speak.
Examples of hegemony can be found everywhere that give further understanding to this process. During Thursday's screening of the documentaries Killing us Softly and Tough Guise, I experienced one such example. The auditorium was filling up quickly, so I assumed a seat towards the front which, I assumed, would allow me to watch with less distraction. This quickly turned out not to be the case, as the person sitting to my left proved to make himself into quite a particular obnoxious distraction throughout the entire screening. As unfortunate (or ironic) as this circumstance may have been, the silver lining has shown itself in the fact that this person is now the lucky topic of conversation in my example of hegemony - Let's call him Steve the Sexist.
Throughout the screening of Killing Us Softly, Steve the Sexist was sure to come up with a witty, overly vulgar comment to go along with every attractive female that was shown on the documentary, including countless references to sex and sexual acts with said women, comments on their bodies, etc. Furthermore, whenever Kilbourne made mention of the very actions that Steve was participating in or the devaluing concepts that media has helped to spread about women, he was sure to comment in some form or another that this was the "way it should be." Little did Steve the Sexist realize, that through his comments, gestures, and actions, he was proving Kilbourne's point exactly, as well as ever so (un)graciously illustrating the concept of hegemony: even in direct opposition to the ideas and actions he deemed "normal" and "acceptable" that is, the documentary created to expose such actions, their rise, and the wrongs and hurts they cause, he failed to see or even recognize the slightest err or wrong in his actions. The implication here is that hegemony has had such a great impact on Steve the Sexist concerning his view of women that is has effected the roles he assumes for them, and their subsequent objectification in his mind, because such actions and ideologies have been the predominate influence on his thinking.
For a long time, I have had an interest in Media, and actually started my own part time business in Web Design last summer. In order to expand my boundaries and improve my skills in an area of study I'm passionate about, I decided to join the Communications FIG; this course is one of the classes included as part of my FIG group. In taking this course, I hope to gain a more solid background knowledge on the development and history of media, as well as formal learning into the study of how to predict trends and changes in media. I would like to learn more about global and multicultural media, and the dynamics that exist when trying to create media that is appealing and accessible to people from different cultures, countries, and ways of life.
One of my favorite blogs is freelanceswitch.com, which has many articles geared toward those in the creative/design/information industry, especially ones who are freelancers or operators of small business ventures.
Freelance Freedom is a Comic Series created by N.C. Winters and regularly published through the Freelance Freedom blog that focuses on the life, pros, and cons of the freelance lifestyle.
