In chapter 6 of Reading Images by Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen, the meaning of different types of composition is fully discussed. The first major example they use is Sony's website. The authors discuss how Sony uses the composition of its homepage to display what might be versus what is. They claim that "the top part shows the pleasure derived from using the company's products, [...]while the bottom part shows a range of actual products" (183). By stating this, the authors mean that the top of the page shows what could be while the bottom part of the page allows customers to order the actual products and make those products part of their lives.
Did the Green light really mean something?
In another part of their argument, the authors claimed that magazines, books, etc all have what is given on the left page and what is new on the right page. Given means that the reader should already know what is happening on that page, or it is information they have been confronted with before. New means that the information is new to the reader and they should interpret it as such. I think that this might not always be true, but the authors have constructed their argument in such a way that they can argue their claim to always be true. I relate this to certain books and short stories as well as works of art in which the creator did not necessarily put a certain symbol into their work or that they did not give it as much meaning as an analyst perceives. In other words, they can always argue that this claim is true when it might not always be.
The last point that I would like to touch upon is the authors discussion of visual composition. I thought it was incredibly interesting that other cultures focus on a central composition, while photography students in the US are taught that this is very bad composition. In previous religion classes, I have been presented with Mandalas and have not thought to compare it to the US' form of art. Centralized composition was always avoided in my photography instruction as well as my general art instruction. My teacher claimed that it was bad composition and that there needed to be more happening in the picture. Even when I read comics, the characters would not be in the center of the frame, rather they would be off to one side or the other.
Neither character is in the middle of the frame. They are placed in the bottom left and right.
In "Viewers Make Meaning", by Sturken and Cartwright, a large variety of topics are covered. The first topic that caught my eye was the discussion of how ad's target certain audiences. It would make more sense to aim towards the largest audience possible right? This made me think of some ads that I have seen that feature an ambiguous model in that it is not fully possible to determine one particular race that she appeals to. Ad companies do this to appeal to a multitude of audiences. Although this may be the case, one example that comes to my mind is the Furman brochure. We feature a catalogue of many different races shown doing various activities, while in reality, Furman is a campus that has a majority of caucasian students. While the school is trying to bring in more diversity, I think that this is also a form of false advertising. Yes, it appeals to a larger community of possible students, but it is also not a completely true ad. Should Furman change this? Why or why not? How would this affect future students looking at the school?
Another topic that caught my eye was when Sturken and Cartwright said that "to feel touched by a mass image is to harbor a mistaken understanding of oneself as the individual for whom the image's meaning is personally intended" (51). I feel as though many people can relate to this statement when music is considered. Personally, whenever I listen to a song that I like, the words speak to me and make me think that the song was made especially for my situation. A great example would be Taylor Swift and her songs. Many young girls relate their lives to her songs and believe that their situation fits her songs perfectly. When I hear songs that I personally relate to in an elevator or a store, it opens my eyes to how public music truly is. The same goes for art. Everyone takes a different meaning from each piece.
One last topic that I would like to mention is that meanings that are supposed to be presented are not always the ones taken. According to Sturken and Cartwright "viewers may make meanings that are not intended or anticipated by its producers, and that viewers are active agents in the production of meaning" (55). I related this immediately to an article that I was referred to by Facebook. It talks about how there are some websites that have unintentionally humiliated themselves by their website's name. One particular example is speedofart.com which is for the website called Speed Of Art, but people can interpret Speed O Fart from it. Should certain advertisers include their specific meaning in their ads to avoid things like this? Should they leave it up to interpretation? Why or why not?
In "Framed and Mounted" by Rowe, "the most important object in sports photography is sport's prime instrument, the human body" (143). I think this is a little strange considering that many of the covers of magazines, especially ones with women, are photoshopped. Yes, the body is important and the prime topic in sports, but it is also altered. In the next section, Rowe even claims that "when the image is caught, it can be altered in many ways to improve its impact" (143). Even though the image is altered, it is acceptable because it makes a bigger impact? So would the impact be considered false or modified due to the change in the picture? What do you think? Should sports magazines be allowed to alter their pictures? Should they have a disclaimer saying that the photo has been altered? Why or why not?
Later on, Rowe claims that how sports magazines show women versus men is radically different. Men are almost always shown in an action shot, while women are shown in "passive, non-athletic roles" (1
46). Is this supposed to make people relate to women more? Are they supposed to make the women seem more motherly, while men are made to seem more dominant in sports? Is this right? Should this be changed?
Sports Illustrated Cover:
Kate Upton who is NOT an athlete
The only time in which women are more dominant in sports magazines is in the yearly Sports Illustrated. Rowe mentions another magazine, Who Weekly, in which they had a front page story claiming to have top athletes pose nude. In fact, the magazine had four pictures. Two were of men and two were of women. One of the men was in an action shot, while the other three pictures were passive shots. The worst part of this spread, in my opinion, was the fact that the two men were only shown torso and up, while the women's whole body was shown.
Beyonce
African-American, but still fits ideal
Skin color is also a controversial topic that sports magazines have tackled. Rowe states that "models with African ancestry...typically possessed very light-color skin and facial features that conform to the Anglo-American beauty ideal" (166). This poses that racism also occurs in sports magazines as well as sexism. The models that are selected to be shown have to conform to a certain ideal that the magazine wants to appeal to. Should these magazines be more realistic? Is it right to put an ideal out into the world that is realistically unattainable? Wouldn't this cause more problems than solutions?
In "Images, Power, and Politics" by Sturken and Cartwright, it is discussed how images play a large role in our lives. Specifically, Sturken and Cartwright point out that "a single image can serve a multitude of purposes, appear in a range of settings, and mean different things to different people" (9). They go on to give many examples and discuss a few in depth.
In one of the first images that they share, they talk about how the photographer used the subjects' raw emotions to get the reaction that he wanted. This reminded me of several slaughterhouse videos and images that were shared with me over the summer while I was doing research into how animals were treated in their farms. I am not going to post images of these things here, but I do believe that they were posted initially to get reactions from the public. These images were used to spark action in people instead of being a pure entertainment image, like so many others. The authors state "the power of the photograph to provide evidence of violence and injustice is coupled with the photograph's power to shock and horrify" (11). Do you think that photos have this power? Should they be used primarily for this or entertainment? Why? Why not?
Later on, Sturken and Cartwright point out that although we know that photos have the option to be altered, we usually have "the shared belief that photographs are objective or truthful records of events" (18). The most obvious example that came to my mind was that of models and fashion. Magazine covers and photo shoots of celebrities are always altered. America has especially looked to these images, which many people know are altered, to attain a standard for themselves. This ideal is highly unrealistic, and it causes many young girls to look to eating disorders to attain this extremely skinny appearance. This is another example of an action that is sparked by an image.
It is also mentioned that during the OJ Simpson case, both Time magazine and Newsweek reproduced Simpson's mugshot as their cover. Newsweek placed an unedited mugshot on their cover while Time "heightened the contrast and darkened Simpson's skin tone" (25). I thought it was particularly interesting that Time would not allow the authors to reproduce the cover image in their book, while Newsweek did. To me, that seems like they are realizing that they should not have done that, but it has taken them a while to figure that out. What do you think? Should magazines be allowed to photoshop their covers? If so, should they have to declare it in their magazine? If not, why not? What benefits and costs would that have to the public? Towards the end, the authors discussed how a piece of art's value is "determined by economic and cultural factors" (34). They then go on to discuss Van Gogh's work as well as Pollock's. I thought it was incredibly interesting that they questioned why Van Gogh's paintings were in 1991, while when he was still alive, he never made any money off of them. The people during his time did not want to see his art because it was not the style back then. Today, however, it is a different story.
In chapter 6 of Blogging, by Jill Walker Rettberg, she introduces the chapter by talking about how the internet is full of conversations and how "consumers communicate about products" (128). She discusses how customers "were getting accustomed to comparing other customers' reviews of products before making a purchase" (128). This really struck me because my family is dependent upon this. Even though we never comment or review an item, if my father finds one negative review about a product, he will discourage me from purchasing that product. I think that this has something to do with credibility and un-sponsored reviews. People are willing to listen to other people that have not been told by a certain company to talk about X product. If someone reviews an item and genuinely likes it and writes about it, it would give the product a bigger liklihood of being purchased. On the other hand, a product with many negative reviews, or in my family's case, just one, that item has a significantly lower chance of being purchased. Should products with negative reviews be able to hide the negative comments? Why or why not? Would this diminish their credibility?
Later on, Rettberg discusses http://www.problogger.net/ and how the creator, Darren Rowse, used his tips to increase his own readership. Bloggers would read his blog and find some useful information. Rowse linked to participants of his "31 Days to A Better Blog" and they generally linked back to him. As they got more readers, so did Rowse due to his link on their pages. Another thing that Rettberg points out is that Rowse then had a "clear agenda for what he would blog about for a whole month" (149). This reminded me of another blog that I read: Undressed Skeleton. What she did that reminded me of Rowse's plan was that she planned to go vegan for a whole month. She then blogged her recipes and received feedback from her readers. She, like Rowse, had a structured plan for the month, but, unlike Rowse, she did not have her recipes set out exactly. She still had to create them, but maybe a day or two in advance, not as structured as Rowse. Is a structured blog a good thing? A bad thing? Why or why not? What are the benefits and cons?
In my last post, I talked about how I thought that radio was a two-way media. People could call in, get to ask their questions or request a song, and life would be good. Rettburg, however, has proved me wrong. In chapter four of her book Blogging, she starts off talking about how letters sent in and calls would be monitored and only select ones would be featured. This opened my eyes yet again on how media can control us. No matter what we say or send in, whoever is publishing that content can exclude our opinions. They pick the best of the best of who says good things about them. They are obviously not going to put in a negative review about themselves. Do you think that some media should find a way to publish all things sent in? Why or why not? What would come out of it?
Later on, Rettburg explains a few ways in which blogs coincide with journalism. One point in particular really struck me. She explained that "blogs can give first-hand reports from ongoing events, whether wars, natural disasters, or crimes" (86). I watch a show called "The Newsroom" in which they recently reported on the Genoa case. They were struggling to find a reliable source, when a twitter feed came up. There were several tweets from one individual who was there, and he 'reported' what he saw. They used this information to justify their case against Genoa and to authenticate it. Later on in the chapter, it is mentioned how blogs are able to give immediate news. I compared this to the news site project we just completed in class. Those sites gave twitter feeds and showed their most recent articles that were posted. Blogs give a more immediate connection to those people who were directly involved. Instead of the information coming through a journalist, the eyewitness gives that information themselves. Rettberg finished the chapter with the very accurate statement that "blogs need mainstream media, and that today, the mainstream media also need blogs." (110)
Kovach and Rosentiel talk about several things that journalists need to conform to. Those things are: "1. Never add anything that was not there. 2. Never deceive the audience. 3. Be transparent as possible about your methods and motives. 4. Rely on your own original reporting. 5. Exercise humility." (78). I think that although these point all should be a given, they need to be declared. Many journalists, I think, need to be reminded of these morals. They should not try to deceive their audience, because that would lose them credibility and with that, readers.
Later on, Kovach and Rosentiel talk about fiction as nonfiction. This reminded me of mockumentaries and docudramas. For instance, when I first stumbled upon The Onion, I had no idea that it was all completely made up. I believed some information about it and proceeded to tell my friend about this awesome story that I read. Later, much to my humility, I found out that it was all fake. I believe that media that does this should have a highly visible disclaimer, either at the end or the front of the page. What do you think? Should mockumentaries and docudramas have a disclaimer? Why or why not? Benefits? Costs?
After reading chapters 2 and 3 of Blogging by Jill Walker Rettberg, I definitely have A LOT to say. I thought it was particularly interesting that Rettberg started the second chapter with Plato sharing his opinions on writing: it would destroy peoples' ability to memorize something. His logic was why would someone remember something when they can just look it up? While this does make some sense, we know today that this is not the case. If anything, writing has shared with us more information on a huge variety of topics and thereby increased the level of education relative to if we did not have books. Plato also "complains that a written text is basically unresponsive" (33). Rettberg later explains that writing in blogs and online has actually created a more responsive audience. We can now comment, express our opinions, and question a certain article or post that someone has made.
Rettberg mentions that the invention of the printing press did wonders for the spread of books and written work. She then mentions that, with the revolution of the printing press, came features that changed our culture. Those features are: dissemination, standardization, reorganization, data collection, preservation, and amplification and reinforcement. Once I read these and what they meant, it seemed very common sense. I looked back and wondered why I had not recognized all of this before.
Another thing that came with the creating of the printing press was the spread of literacy. It was no longer upper class that had the luxury of reading. Literacy spread and continues today to do so. I do not think that someone in today's society, at least in the US, could get by without being able to read and write. She later goes on about how people reading silently was a new phenomenon. I used to get incredibly mad at my little brother when he would read out loud and would ask him to read silently. He would respond that he could not and I was terribly confused. I did not understand why he could not read to himself quietly. I guess this makes a little more sense now that I know that learning to read silently is actually a skill in among itself. How many people do you think are literate in the world today? In the US, the rates are 99%, while in Afghanistan, only 28.1% of people are literate.
I do have an argument against a later statement by Rettburg. She claims that the radio was used as "one-to-many" type of media. My argument is that people call into radios all of the time. They get put on the radio commenting or asking for a particular song. While yes, this is still a one-to-many type of media, they listeners still get a chance to interact with the creators. It is not completely a one-way medium. What do you think? What are some other examples of a one-way media versus a two-way media? Are these the best that they can be? Should some forms of media switch?
As for chapter three, Rettburg mentions the six degrees of separation, which I fully believe in. I recently found out that my cousin knows Maisie Williams - Arya Stark from Game of Thrones - and when I found out about this, besides being glared at by my family for freaking out, I thought about how I was only one person away from her, and by that, two people away from the whole cast of Game of Thrones. It was definitely an interesting and eye-opening experience. My cousin is also a weak tie for me, since she lives in England with my aunt, uncle, and other cousin. Since we grew up separately, she would not be the person that I would think to know anyone like Maisie. I actually found out through another aunt who told me when she visited last summer.
Nearer the end of the chapter, Rettburg mentions danah boyd (who deliberately does not capitalize her name) and how "she identifies four characteristics of online social spaces that make them fundamentally different from offline social spaces" (76). She lists: persistence (information can be recorded and accessed later), searchability (people can find you), replicability (photos/conversations can be copied and modified so that someone cannot tell the difference from the original), and invisible audiences (not knowing who is viewing your blog). My biggest concern with these is the visibility to a professional when I leave school. My father recently warned me about another blog and how I should not advertise my habits and less than awesome things about myself. I took his advice to heart and changed some things about my other blog. I also never post anything on Facebook. It drives me absolutely nuts that people post things all the time. Anyways, boyd does have some good points about staying classy online and being aware of what you are getting yourself into. Do you think that there should be some sort of limitation or standard that some websites should put into place? Should Facebook monitor what people say and have a way to regulate it? Why or why not?
What is your first
impression of the site? Think of the “3 second rule.” (pg 31)
Looks busy – text all over
the place, maybe not enough visuals
When you scroll down, it
encourages scanning because the font is small and makes you not want to
look up close in detail
Most of the featured
articles are of entertainment, not necessarily news events happening in
the grand scheme of things
How does this site
establish credibility? How does it establish trust? Or does it? (pg 28-29)
Authentic
voice?
Genuine?
Transparency?
Hard to decipher
authenticity because it’s a very well-known news station source,
Certain articles does not
feel genuine, doesn’t have reporters name
One or two sentences per
paragraph which encourages reading
What is the general
writing style?
Biased?
Objective?
Generally pretty objective
Does the writer
IDENTIFY with his or her readers, or not? How (or why not)?
Author doesn’t really put
their two cents into what they are writing, mostly just stating facts
Does the writing
style get to the point?
Yes, short and concise
How is it arranged?
Is it arranged in reverse pyramid style?
Not really, pyramid just
goes from big headline to everything else in around the same
Is content shaped for
scanning? How is the content layered? (p 32)
Yes because they’re all
written in short concise paragraphs that make it easy to read, not
overwhelming
First few sentences and
headline pretty much already sums up the gist of the entire article
Starts with categories,
which brings you to dozens of more articles within that category which you
can then click on
Is the tone or rhythm
of the site consistent throughout?
It stays pretty consistent
in regards to tone because they are all spewing out facts and not really
giving opinions, staying objective.
How does the site use
headlines?
First article has a big
headline that is in all capitalized font
Supported by a picture
which gives us good information on what the article is about
First line is all
capitalized and using very little words, with a supporting sentence
underneath which I think attracts peoples attention to the article
How does it use
links? Effectively or not?
When you click on a
certain article, on the right hand side it’ll give you a list of more
links to videos but they are not always relevant to the article which
could be a drawback
It can be effective in the
sense that, for example when we clicked on the pizza article link, on the
right hand side it’ll give you a list of other articles within the
Lifestyle category which makes it easier to navigate if you are only
looking for articles in Lifestyle.
How is multimedia
used? Is it distracting? How is it displayed on the site? Does the multimedia
tell the same story as the text, or a different side of the story?
Not exactly distracting
because it doesn’t pop up unless you actually intentionally click on it
It doesn’t always really
give us a different side of the story, it seems like it follows the
article, doesn’t really add anything different
How does the site
“package” stories? (pg 36)
Doesn’t always show
additional information relative to the article, only shows how many people
shared it on Facebook or Twitter
However, certain articles
will have additional links to other sources
How are graphics
used?
Too cluttered?
Are the graphics consistent through
out the site, and consistent to the brand?
Do they encourage or discourage use,
and how?
Each article has its own
picture
Pretty effective in the
way that they structured it on the page, having it right under each of the
article’s headlines
Graphics are quite
consistent
Can each page stand
on it’s own?
Yes, every page is pretty
much formatted the same way which is very helpful and makes it look and
feel organized
How is the
navigation? Do you get lost? Do you always know where you are? How (or why
not)?
Navigation is good, links
(Home, Lifestyle, Video, News) on every page that allows you to return or
navigate to other sections on the website you want to go which is
effective and useful
How does the site
incorporate/interact with its audience? How does it embody the social aspect of
the internet (or does it)?
Gives audience a wide
range of news, including events and things happening in the entertainment
industry, not just politics and science and things like that.
Here is a few screenshots of the whole foxnews.com website:
Do you think we are right? Anything else you can spot?
While reading chapter 4 of Brian Carroll's Writing for Digital Media, I thought that it was really cool that I actually hyperlinked my sources in my first blog post. He talks about how important it is and how adding hyperlinks to primary sources gives someone's site more credibility. I actually only hyperlinked them after seeing that someone else had done the same. Realizing that it could be done, I played with my settings on Blogger and found out how to do this!
Another thing that I thought was pretty coincidental is that Carroll referenced Jeff Jarvis in chapter 4 while talking about his golden rule of hyperlinking: "Link unto others' good stuff as you would have them link unto your good stuff", and that I had embedded a video of Jarvis speaking about the decline of newspapers in my previous post! I think I am definitely on the right track with this whole blogging thing, according to Carroll at least.
Later on in the chapter, Carroll compares websites and what he thinks are good headlines as well as general layout of the site. I thought this was specifically interesting and relatable since Furman University (aka the school I attend) has just redone their website. It is incredibly more visual and aesthetically pleasing compared to the past site. My friends and I used to joke that to get anywhere within the Furman site, it would be easier to just google it rather than search using the site. With the new design, the website seems to be much easier to navigate as well as keep the attention of any user that is on it. Should websites cater to this new era or stay with their roots? Why or why not? What are the benefits of each side?
Later on, in chapter 7, Carroll discusses the evolution of the blog and the advantages that it has. Specifically, he discusses the debate between journalists and bloggers. Are bloggers journalists or vice versa? He uses the analogy "is anyone with a camera a photographer?" (146). I own a camera and do take pictures. I consider myself a photographer. I may not be the best, or even an amateur, but I am a photographer. I believe the same to be of bloggers. Journalism, to me at least, is a level of blogging that some people aspire to be. They are journalists in the big world, who work for newspapers and big companies, but they all had to start somewhere. I think that journalists are people who are employed, while bloggers can earn money too, they are just self-employed if they devote that much time to it. Why should bloggers be considered journalists or vice versa? Should there be a standard?
According to Brian Carroll, author of Writing for Digital Media, there is a "long-term decline in newspaper readership" (25). While this may be true for the majority of the world, my father proves them wrong. He saves up newspapers when he does not have time to read them, sets aside a Sunday, and thoroughly reads all of them all day. He picks out articles that he thinks apply to the various members of our family, cuts them out, and gives them to us when we pass by. I personally like the ability to hold the physical paper in my hand. I'm the same way when it comes to books. I've read a few books on my iPad, but its not the same as physically flipping the page and seeing your progress. Another example would be CDs. Most people seem to like downloading music or videos digitally, but I really like to have the album in my hand and the ability to play it in my car. Jeff Jarvis, an American journalist, professor, public speaker, and former television critic speaks in the video to the left about how newspapers are declining.
Contrary to my past statements, I do agree with Carroll on his point that "the medium can deliver more" (25). I thoroughly believe that the Internet and digital media can deliver a much larger amount to an even larger amount of people. Products that are in print have to be individually purchased after a trip to a store, while digital media can we watched from the comfort of home with much less effort. Do you think that the internet and digital media are superior to print? Why? In what ways?
Carroll later talks about HTML formatting and for me, it was like reading another language. I'm loving Blogger because I know how to manage it. If I had to put together a blog based completely on my ability to process computer coding, you would not be reading this right now.
In chapter 3 of his book, Carrol speaks mostly about how to improve a blogger's style and technique online. I found his case study on Google to be very interesting. Carroll points out that Google has kept its simplicity throughout the years and it made me think about whether or not there was a limit on simplicity. Yes, Google is simple, but they also change it up every once in a while. They change the design of the Google picture on their page to match up with a holiday or special occasion. I think that this is a good thing, but some websites or even blogs can reach a level of being too simple. When that happens, users are confused because they have no idea how to navigate the site without options of where to go. Where do you think the limit would be on the complexity of a site? Should there be hard rules, like a word limit? Should people be allowed to do what they want with their own sites? Google is a special exception in my opinion that has been able to stick to its simple roots.
.jpg)
