Binary Oppositions

To touch on binary oppositions we would consider the examples such as man/woman, black/white, masculine/feminine, culture/nature, and so forth. These are considered categories of difference and are used to produced organized meaning especially in photographs among all other things in the world. The words reflect the opposite of the other one. For instance, if we take masculine we generally know what the opposite of it is....feminine. Binary oppositions are are reductive ways of viewing the complexity of difference.
Binary oppositions are also opposite in the way of "normal" and "abnormal" in so many words. The category of the norm is actually always set up in opposition to that which is deemed abnormal in some way hence the other one. The first category is considered unmarked or the norm while the other considered marked or other. To picture this in our mind, something that is unmarked would be something normal, not different or something that stands out, if something is marked, it clearly stands out or is different.
One thing we must be able to do when thinking of binary opposition is to understand the difference in the terms. When we see a photograph for example, or advertisements, we take the image in and try to make sense of its surroundings. In contemporary advertising both norms and otherness is highly evident. Thus taking the difference between Western and Eastern cultures and the terms Occidental and Oriental. Orientalism is the tendencies of the westerners who have fetishized, mythologized, and feared the cultures, lands, and people of Asia and the middle east. It is the way we have seen things through which we have been exposed to that secret world but not knowing unless we have been there.
In the painting The Bath, by Jean-Leon Gerome, binary opposition is very prominent. The difference in race, culture, position and so on is a good example of the term. The fact that fetish and exotic both show in this painting as well as the normal and abnormal we generally can make out the difference. There is a lot more that goes along with binary oppositions and how we see them. Photographs, paintings and advertisements usually are done with some kind of binary oppositions we can point out although we may never get it and may only just be focusing on what the advertisement or picture has to offer.

Modernity and Modernism

The development if modernity and modernism came about during different time periods. Modernity was based on an ideal of the liberal human subjects and is said to be as a self-knowing, unified, and autonomous entity with individual human rights and freedoms. (pg. 95).
It is also a term that refers to historical, cultural, political and also economic conditions related to enlightenment also known as an eighteenths century philosophical movement. This was a worldview beginning in the eighteenth century with prosperity and optimistic view of the future and all of its changes as well as the anxiety of social upheaval, technology, revolutionary change and the anxieties related to the upheaval.
Modernism on the other hand was a set of styles that merged in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth centuries. This was seen in literature, architecture, ant and in film. These changes generally were differences in times, materially making things different, exploring, and bettering the world and its technology using both equipment and structural elements. The difference between the two is significant, its is the beginning of change and anxiety of awaiting it and the actual jump into making the changes that help signify the future.
In Michael Foucault's theory of discourse was the concept of madness and the modern institutionalization of the idea of insanity. Foucault said that back in the Renaissance period of times madness was not considered a disease or an illness and the mad were not excluded from society the way the are today. They were not labeled, medicated, and tucked away but were rather integrated into the fabric of small villages. With the movement of people into urban centers and as the modern political state emerged madness became larger and also medicalized, pathologized and also seen as a polluting factor in society. Instead of allowing them to live in the norms of society they were removed and institutionalized. This was a huge change in modern times.
Foucault's theory of discourse relates to that whole change with madness and society because it did change over time. Certain concepts of the discourse of madness did not exist and were not spoken about or represented. According to Foucault in our text, madness is defined through varying discourses of medicine, law, education etc and gives us a certain kind of knowledge about it or in other words the sense of truth behind it all and the practices within institutions for dealing with these subjects that are paranoid schizophrenics, criminally insane or the psychiatric patient. Dealing with these people by giving medical treatment to those deemed insane. His discourse is related to the change in madness in modern times by the fact that these people were just people in society but because of the rise of modernism they now are labeled insane, put away, and medicated. This is a very broad array of discourses and shows that over time discourses and the values that underlie them change over time and allow us to look more critically at the discourses at work in our current and ever changing social context.

"decoder"

When we negotiate images it often means that we take what we see and interpret it in our minds both at conscious and unconscious levels. Watching a television show we sometimes become addicted to certain things we like about the characters, settings, or even realism the show portrays. When I watch television I usually go for the reality shows and I think it is because I find more interest in watching people hurt, succeed, struggle and even things that people deal with in life that I may not or wish to. I will be the first to say that I dislike television and could live without one in my home however when you get me in front of a reality show its like my eyes are glued to the t.v. because it is very interesting and we do act as decoders when it comes to television.

In our text it talks about reality television programming and the fact that it is a means for television industries to create cheap programming without having to pay the high fees of known performers and scriptwriters. The television show that I have watched for a few seasons that it was on was The Real Housewives of Orange County. The position I took as a decoder was the negotiated image because I would take the meanings of the images or lifestyles on the screen and put them into my own perspective on life even though it didn't pertain to me directly.

The fact that I can place myself in the sense of single parenting, everyday drama, and mix it up with a higher class of people was very interesting. Although everyone would love to trade their life for what we see on television we know in reality that is not going to happen. The fact that these people are millionaires, drive fancy cars, spend money like its nothing, live in mansions, and have massive amounts of plastic surgery to look like a million bucks can be quite intriguing to someone who doesn't have that.

My idea of decoding images or acting as a decoder while watching television shows probably differs from others. I can take any reality show and decode it and put myself in the realm of the everyday life of the person who is belong filmed even if I am not close to their style, culture or class.

Interpellation in advertisements

The role of interpellation in advertisements is to make the viewer aware of the image and what it means to the self. The image is supposed to draw attention of ones self to the advertisement whether or not it is made for the viewer or not. In the text, it states that images hail viewers as individuals, which means that even though people are looking at the same image it was not intended for the "just for me" crowd but reaches a wider audience.

The image, by viewer interpellation to be effective, must understand his or herself as being a member of a social group that shares codes and conventions through which the image becomes meaningful. If an image is something meaningful to me it would mean that it has a strong relationship to my personal likes and beliefs. For example, a picture of a loved one who is deceased or even a picture of an image of America would interpellate me because it is something that has meaning to me personally. An interpellation in an advertisement can also catch my attention even if i feel discusted, offended or ashamed of it, it can also draw my attention in that direction.

The relationship between taste and kitsch is the fact that both are based on ones class, cultural background, education and other aspects of identity. Taste in the text is noted of the higher class people, ones that enjoy the finer things in life such as opera, fine arts and theatre, the "real" things in life. Kitsch on the other hand is the middle class or working class taste or also said to be "tacky" things in life such as comic strips, television and cinemas. In the text, Bordieu speaks of taste or someone "having taste" we are usually using culturally specific and class based concepts.

An example of kitsch is associated with images and objects that are trite, mass produced and cheaply made or gaudy. An example that I read in the text of something that is considered kitsch is plastic reproductions of a crystal chandelier. Even though kitsch is deemed gaudy and cheap it has become more popular with a higher demand in the world today because things can be replicated and sold at a lower cost and you can make something look good or the exact same without many people knowing. A good example of kitsch, and to be honest a higher class person would definitely pick it out in a crowd, is the replicated handbags sold in NYC. I wouldn't know the difference between a fake Gucci but someone of higher class or standards that can afford a 950.00 handbag definitely would.

Image Icon and Ideology

The reading again was very interesting. From the discussion on Images and Ideology to what Icons mean and pictures describing them. In the text it states, practices of looking are intimately tied to ideology, which is in my own words what we see and what we imagine the photo is about. The world portrays many images based on culture, race, gender, government, eras, etc, you name it! This is how most of the image icons we see can have many meanings about the world and whats happening around us.

A couple interesting things in the text, the fact that O.J. Simpsons photo of his mugshot on the cover of time magazine and how they darkened the image to portray evil, deviance and guilt. Looking at this image that is exactly what we see. Meanings of Images with the example of company logos, in the text, nike, the swoosh equalls nike but the connotative meaning is the swoosh means quality, coolness. The fact that many pictures are icionic signs, the 2 painitngs of Madonna and child from two different outlooks and centuries.

An image icon is connected to ideology because an image can bring out the ideologies or set of values or beliefs that an individual believes tied to culture, religion, politics, fashion, etc. We all make assumptions on what we see based on the world around us.

The image icon I chose on my blog doesn't have much significant meaning, I chose it because there wasn't much to choose from on here.

This image icon when we look at it is a symbol of a person waiving their hand on what everyone would seemingly know as a poloroid photo. If we look at this image not knowing what it was used for on the blog, what would we think? We see a person waiving, and a poloroid picture, we would assume that this would be a place to either view, add or store pictures. This image is a very easy one to figure out. In out text we see an image icon of Marilyn Monroe who was seen to be a famous pop icon image of the 1950;s and 1960's. Based on what was portrayed in the world as popular, fashion, and the ideal model of beauty and glamour in that time period. Her image icon portrays that exactly. When we take a look at the image of Madonna on the Blonde Ambition Tour in London, we see that exact same image.

Now if I sneak this image icon into my blog, then this would mean to me, innocence, happiness, and love. It shows the image of a little girl (my daughter) dressed up and looking happy. If someone saw this image they may think, well, It is the 21st century because of the car, maybe the car seat, and even style. It looks like the child is happy to be going somewhere, the smile on her face shows happiness, the way she is dressed looks like it is somewhere important she is going. To me, its an image of a cheery, happy child on her way to her very first dance recital! because ideology plays a huge roll with image icons, we all have different thoughts and visions of what we think an actually picture is truly saying.

The Myth of Photographic Truth

The reading was very interesting. The beginning story about the photograph by Weegee (Arthur Felig), The First Murder, is a very good example of the practices of looking. Capturing in a moment, the facial expressions of what these people seen and feel while experiencing a murder. The photo captures many emotions and can tell a story with just a title. Also, the picture of Emmett Till in his casket bearing the signs of his brutal murder tell a much more graphic picture than what we ready about the actual story.
The definition of representation referring to the use of both languages and images to create meaning about the world around us shows that looking at something and hearing it go together hand in hand.
The myth of photographic truth basically represents the question is the photograph really real? Is it a picture of what is really happening in that very moment or something that is set up? In the photo by Cindy Sherman do we ask ourselves when we first see the picture we would think is the woman really dead or alive? Is this photograph set up to make us think that she’s dead or is she alive? How do we really know? Even though a photograph is taken at a time when something was possibly true doesn’t mean that when we view it, it still is. There is a lot that a photographer can do to alter an image, make it unrealistic, take something out of a background or add it.
Theorist Roland Barthes uses the term myth in many different ways. He says that the photograph, unlike a drawing, offers a difference between what is here now, the image, and what was there then meaning the referent, or object, thing or place. He also talks about the truth-value of photography and what it does for the courtroom for instance does a photo used for evidence hold any weight really in the courtroom? How do we know if the evidence is really real?
Barthes also stated that photographs are also objects in which we invest deep emotional content. We take an emotion to what we see. Photographs are past moments stopped in time. Photographs can either be objective or truthful records of events. Barthes also said that there is no such thing as a purely denotative image, that connotative meanings are particularly useful in examining notions of photographic truth.

Power of pictures

I must say, I believe that the power of pictures is stronger than words. Words are plain, when we read them, we can visualize, but when we actually see a picture of what is being portrayed in our mind, that is stronger than any word you could read! A picture can make us feel more than a word can, when we see it, we can usually feel it too!