roerigm-blog

[roerigm-blog]

In chapter 10 Satellite images and their utilizations were discussed. Google images is fascinating because it gives you the pleasure of thought that you can see any place in the world at any given moment. The world is quite literally at your fingertips. The book says that satellite images changes the way that we objectively view the world. there is an idea that we are a small part in a big picture. Satellite images brings unity to Earth because despite race, ethnicity or nationality, we are all inhabitants of planet Earth. A picture of Earth is like one big group picture!  I work at a Home Health Care agency and before meeting a new client, I am given a sheet of directions to their house but also shown the house or facility on Google Earth so I know exactly what location I am looking for so that there will be no mis-haps. The picture is a scene captured by google earth that appears to be a body being dragged off a dock. This embodies the idea of lack of privacy in todays society, that man thought he was completely alone and that no one was watching; it makes you think, when the google camera was taking these pictures, what were you doing? Did you think you were alone?

[roerigm-blog]

The ultimate goal of the holocost was to eliminate those who were not part of the Aryan race. Those who did not have blonde hair and blue eyes were eliminated. Similarly in Rwanda, they eliminated based on their appearance. The  It is hard to process why not even a race, but certain charecteristics of that race were deemed inferior to the other. Who determines that one appearance is superior to another? Is is the physionomists that analyzed skulls and facial features responsible for this, or maybe it is determined by society or people in power. Recently in our antomy lab, we were spontaneously taken down to the cadaver lab. Our professor took out a bucket of fluid and took out what looked like a thick piece of raw fish. He asked if anyone could identify what it was; and no one could recognize it. He turned it over and soon enough you could see eyelases, a toungue and teeth. He then took out a frontal cross section of an eye with glaucoma, and we looked through the cloudy lense. Lastly he took out the human brain. The entire lecture I do not recall blinking and my jaw was dropped to the floor. I just saw someone's father, son, brother, Mother, daughter's memories, thoughts, emotions in the palm of someones hand no longer functioning. I LOOKED through someone elses eye. That same eye watched their child take its first steps, could have seen war, could have looked into the eyes of someone that they love. Some had to leave because they found it repulsive or saddening. I found it fascinating; just like the people who were spectators during surgeries.

[roerigm-blog]

The book describes how post modernism througout time decreases the intensity of reality and empathy. Communication throughout the world is so instantaneous that we know any significant event that happens within minutes because you see it on the news. The amount of news we watch is absurd, therefore we are constantly being exposed to the violence in the world; this constant exposure de-sensitizes the public. When you hear that there was a murder on the news, you dont think much of it, you feel slight sympathy for the family but it doesnt effect the rest of your day. If you are not desensitized by the news then you would be emotionally deteriorated day in and day out. Bobo doll experiment tested the effects on how agression can be a learned behavior by watching it. After watching an adult play with a doll violently, they gave a group of children the same doll and observed if they treated the doll the same way that they observed. This can be related back to how media can desensitize you; by constantly being informed of violence by the increase of communication, you become numb to humanity

[roerigm-blog]

The Language of Transformation is when advertisers target you creating an issue you didnt know you had. For example, almost any human with braincells is mentally and phyically able to use an ice tray. The ad above magnifies the minor inconvience of carrying and breaking the ice into a major hassle; a major hassle that can only be assuaged with the help of their product they are ripping you off for! But wait theres more! Arcades gave an aesthetic aspect to shopping which increased sales. Instead of walking in for what you needed and leaving with only that item, you walk in with your friends for recreational purposes with no specific item in mind, and leave with multiple items that you did not intend to buy. For example; I have never walked into Home Depot for a 2x4 and left with a power saw I didnt need. However, I have walked into TJ Maxx for a new top and left with chocolate scented lipgloss, 4 new throw pillows, coffee mugs with cats on them and maybe the top I orginally went in for if I remembered. The difference between the two is that Home Depot is bare. There is cement floors homologous racks piled high with products with plastic packaging or just bare. TJ Maxx stratigically arranges their products to entise you and then packages them delicatly with something that will catch your eye. By making the stores visually appealing, it entises the consumer to spend more because it turned shopping from something nescessary to something recreational. Not only that, but TJ Maxx prides themselves on carrying unique items that you won't find at your mainstream stores, yet TJ Maxx is a massive franchise and millions of people across the country have access to it. It markets you by making you feel like you need chocolate flavored lipgloss by placing that lipgloss in the aisle that you wait in line in. And you dont decide when you walk up to the cash register, the screen at the end of the aisle dismisses you to the available register, making you wait longer in the line with the most unique and aesthetically packaged products, yet I still fall for it and probably always will.

[roerigm-blog]

The Stanford experiment was a 6 day experiment done in the early 1970's to test the psychological effects of power. They took a group of intelligent, wealthy and healthy males and assigned them a role of either a prisoner, or a guard. The conductors of the experiment set up a prison from the basement of a building at Stanford University. A fake prison, and a bunch of college kids, what can go wrong right? The prisoners were put through a procedure that humiliated and dehumanized them, and as for the guars  they, "...were given no specific training on how to be guards. Instead they were free, within limits, to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners" The results of this experiment yielded acute emotional distress from the prisoners, and guards that were cruel, hostile and enjoyed humiliating the prisoners. There are striking similarities between this experiment and the events that happened at Abu Gharib. The guards were chosen randomly, and the "prisoners" were systematically chosen, but innocent. The Guards were told to "shoot anything that looks like the enemy" without any training and the guards in the experiment were instructed to "to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners" Both directions were vague, and could be interpreted to the guards ability, and under the immense amount of pressure they were under, and with the power they were given, they were not going to interpret it with leniency. The experiment and the events both resulted similarly too, the prisoners at Abu Gharib were physically tortured and killed while at Stanford, the inmates were emotionally and mentally tortured. In conclusion, if you give someone power that they did not earn and do not know how to handle, they will abuse it. How can they be  deemed as "bad soldiers" if their leader was told that their work was well and to carry on. There was no training only distinct instructions like to "give him a bad night, give him a lot of showers, laugh at him, humiliate them deprive them of sleep. identify them as a number" methods of dehumanization and humiliation became so routine that it was eventually normalized.  The guards that shared their story were honest; there was no attempt to cover up what they did, which is what they would have tried to do to clear their reputation of "a few bad apples." They had a tone of being ashamed but did not try to hide it because at they time, they felt like what they were doing was normal. The normalization of cruelties is the case they were trying to plead, and how the higher officials were the ones that normalized it.  Ig they were trying to clear their name, they would not have released the pictures and would have deleted them while they had the chance, instead they were leaked in attempts to expose the evils that were so routine. But once the pictures got out, they were interpreted in a much different way than intended, which happens often with art. The government then pinned it on the motives of the guards rather than pinpointing the real problem. In Invisible empire, an essay written by Nicholas Mirezoeff, he says, "Perhaps the very expectation that the photographs would reveal the inner truth to the war was at fault. It betrays a modernist sensibility that the documentary or straight photograph  could capture and express what Henri Cartier-Bresson famously called the “decisive moment” as indexical truth." What he is saying, is that even though the pictures expose the evils of torture, it does not capture the full story, only the moment; and in that moment the guards look like the bad guys, which is why they were publically berated. If the photo were to capture the truth in its entirety, the outcome would have been different and they would not have had to make an entire documentary to explain that truth.

[roerigm-blog]

James Charles, a popular internet figure is known for being an incredible male makeup artist. He claimed fame by his impeccable senior photo, while most seniors get their pictures back anc critique themselves. James was unhappy with his, so he went to the studio himself and brought his own lighting to retake the photos. The result went viral, his blinding highlight, smolder and defined cheekbones went viral. Then the real story came out; reports said that the photo that went viral was not the one put in the yearbook, but what went in the yearbook was the untouched one, and then photoshopped it, posted it and the photoshopped picture went viral, not the original. People went crazy over something that wasnt true. These rumors were "confirmed" when one of his friends took screenshots of his messgaes and posted them as proof to expose his fraudulency. This goes to show that photographs, that were once used to create art, are now being used as evidance and being displayed on a massive social pedistool. The thing is, with todays social media platforms, nothing is private. As the two were texting, James Charles was being threatened so he was careful with his words because he knew the potential aftershock.The person that posted the screenshots exposed a false story for the entire world to see. In an empiracle sense, it is not so solid evidence, yes the messages are there but the sender could have easily manipulated the text, for example having a conversation that was "set-up" and then changing the name, or sending the texts to himself. But as far as the actual senior portrait, there is solid evidance that James charles is talented both at makeup or photoshopping, As for an ontological sense, there is solid proof that a conversation did happen, and the senior portraits were taken at one point in time, but the validity of the story it entails is not so much set in stone.

[roerigm-blog]

Earlier in the chapter we discussed how art depicts anything to evoke emotion, a reaction, or pubicity. Human anatomy is supposed to be "sacred" and preserved, but if a piece of artwork is a little revealing, it draws attention and stirs the pot a little bit. There are two ways to evoke this emotions from the revealment. The first way is tastefully, as a health science major, the female and male reproductive organs are nothing more than a nose or a finger. The female anatomy creates and harbours life, it is the origin of the miracle of life. Breasts can be associated with breastfeeding and nuturing new life. Without the female (and male I guess), none of us would be here.  In Lorenzo Lotto's Venus and cupid, it captures the essence of everything the female anatomy encompasses. She is completley nude but not in a sexualizing way, in a tasteful and artistic manner.  She is dusted with rose pedals while she plays with her son, keeping him entertained as he playfully urinates on her. The intent of the artist by this painting was to entise the male gaze but it was done in a very classy way that not only portayed her as nude, but represented her amazing capability to handle motherhood. 

The second method is quite the opposite. While in  Venus and Cupid, it shows how beautiful motherhood can be, in more modern ads  accentuate women as a prop rather than a critecal role in the circle of life. Female anatomy is used to grab the attention of men to buy a product.  For example in the Ralph Lauren ad, the word fragrance is in fine print in the bottom corner, your eyes are not drawn to the product they are selling, they are drawn to intimate scene revoloving around the woman. The ad by Guerilla girls exposes this fact. Males are exploiting the reproductive parts of females for their own personal gain. They are desperate for attention for their work so they are willing to put the consequences in the hands of the female race. The advertising industry is not creative enough to discover another method to grab their audience's attention other than objectisizing women

[roerigm-blog]

In class we discussed multiple types of perspective, and how it is shaped. Many of the blogposts on Monday depicted your own perspective of an object versus another person’s perspective on that same object. The painting I attached was made by Bryan Saunders- During the early 2000’s he began this artwork. He created a self-portrait of himself on multiple types of drugs. We are now comparing the self-perspective of a person verses self-perspective of the same person with a completely different frame of mind, which was altered by substance. It is up for debate as to whether the ideas of autonomy Freud, Laucan, Foucault, and Marx are still relevant because although you are still the same person under the influence, drugs can cause you to be the co-pilot of your own thoughts. What percentage of this work is Saunders, and what percent is the drugs? Is your perception of yourself still accurate? Is there even one true picture of accuracy? This is such an intriguing piece of art because it lies in the gray area between two extremes; science and philosophy.