ITSCRAP

          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?