The Bluest Eye and Lipstick Jihad

Many people think how they look will develop their identity and how they feel about themselves on the inside. In the bluest eye, Picola feels ugly, people tell her she is ugly, and she correlates her appearance with her whole being, that she is ugly. She desires blue eyes, and she feels that if she has blue eyes that will make her pretty and accepted and that she will feel pretty on the inside too, but after she thinks she has the blue eyes she is still worried that they are not blue enough. She still has insecurities, similar to before she had blue eyes and struggled with insecurities about being ugly.
In Lipstick Jihad woman also deal with their outward appearance throughout the entire book. Moaveni explains that Tehran is one of the most popular places for plastic surgery and that many women and even men have work done, she even states, "It all seemed so affordable and safe that I felt obligated to get something done." Moavani explains that the people of Tehran have an obsession with beauty which seemed extreme to her; the makeup rituals, eyebrow tattooing, collagen lips, nail decorating, even her cousin Mira thinks she neglects herself just because she does not wear makeup and go to the beauty extreme that the other women pursue. The women of Tehran are under such strict limits about what to wear and how to act on top of being raised to conform its seems that the woman may be using their outward appearance to shape how they feel about themselves on the inside, by creating an identity for themselves. Movani explains that the women are obsessive with their face because they feel they have to overcompensate for their veil, and sometimes a chador, and that is why they wear so much make up...etc. This relates to individuals being contextualized in their cultural situation becuase many Iranian woman in Tehran seemed to be raised to be a wife, they don't usually get an education, and when they are married they are not usually permitted to work. Therefore they have restrictions on what they can wear, but they also want to be attractive to the opposite sex to find a husband, but all in the meantime their self identity gets lost and confused, which is one of the main points of the book Lipstick Jihad.

Regarding the Pain of Others- Response

In the book, Regarding the Pain of Others, by Susan Sontag, the ideas of photography and war are discussed. One of the main points Sontag discusses is the idea of looking at a photo and trying to comprehend what is taking place, “One can feel obliged to look at photographs that record great cruelties and crimes. One should feel obliged to think about what it means to look at them…” She explains that we will never fully understand, "We don't get it. We truly can't imagine what it was like. We can't imagine how dreadful, how terrifying war is war is; and how normal it becomes." The point she also makes is that we should not forget what these images are trying to convey, "The images say: This is what human beings are capable of doing- may volunteer to do, enthusiastically, self-righteously. Don't forget."

I believe that Sontag also wants people to use photos as a means of understanding that what we see as deplorable may photograph as beauty and that the camera has the power to highlight important features, physical and not physical, that cannot be seen by the human eye. Sontag states,“That a gory battlescape could be beautiful—in the sublime or awesome or tragic register of the beautiful—is a commonplace about images of war made my artists. The idea does not sit well when applied to images taken by cameras: to find beauty in war photographs seems heartless. But the landscape of devastation is still a landscape. There is beauty in ruins. " I believe that this is a key element in why it is hard to look away from these war photographs and even other horrible photos, that under the lens of the camera there is beauty, it is just hard to see when one is in the situation.

~Midterm Paper Topic~

The topic of my midterm paper is how today's culture of mass advertising effects the youth of today. More specifically teen girls 13-19/ young women, and what/how advertising affects them and then in return how that effects society. I will discuss how the media advertises/manipulates/ influences teen girls, the consequences of these influences impacting self esteem, body satisfaction, and eating disorders, and then how this effects society as a whole and what are some possible alternatives to alleviating this problem.

The order of my paper will begin with the intro which will state my ideas and thesis, then I will have the body of my paper with all my ideas about what the media is doing to teen girls, (how the media advertises/manipulates/ influences teen girls, the consequences of these influences impacting self esteem, body satisfaction, and eating disorders ...like i previously stated) then my last body/ going into the conclusion paragraph will be about effecting society and alternative solutions wrapping up all my ideas.

The sources I will use for my paper are a couple video documentaries, Beyond Killing us softly: the impact of media images on women/girls and The strength to resist: medias impact on women and girls, scholarly articles, experimental findings/analysis, and websites like http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/ for statistics and other findings. I want to use these items to support my point that negative influence of the media on teen girls who are very impressionable leads to decreased body satisfaction, more eating disorders, lower self esteem which effects our everyday society.

~Sontag's On Photography~

Susan Sontag's book, On Photography, takes a deeper look into the meaning behind a single photograph. She recognizes the individuality behind each picture and takes a critical look at not only the photograph itself but also the photographer. In the first chapter, In Platos Cave Sontag emphasizes the popularity of mass photography and how popular this art form has become, and in the second chapter, America, Seen Through Photographs, Darkly Sontag takes a look at a photographer from the 1970's, Diane Arbus.

In the first chapter, In Platos Cave, Sontag states, "To collect photographs is to collect the world," she explains that movies are watched and then over, but a photograph is a singular tangible object. Photographs can be shared, framed, carried around, they are portable memories. With photographs gaining more popularity with each generation, Sontag explains that everyone is taking pictures, "Recently, photography has become almost as widely practiced an amusement as sex and dancing-which means that, like every mass art form, photography is not practiced by most people as an art. It is mainly a social rite, a defense against anxiety, and a tool of power." This statement is very true for nearly every American; most people have pictures everywhere, in frames on shelves, on their fridge, at their desk, on their bulletin board, in their car. Most people also feel obligated to take pictures on vacation bringing their camera everywhere they go just "in case." This need to photograph everything on vacation is also similar to photographing your children, Sontag explains that if you do not photograph them growing up that it is a sign of ,"parental indifference." It is interesting to see that with the increasing availability of the camera, the face of photography, once seen as more of an art form, has been altered into a modern-day practice.

In Sontag's second chapter, America, Seen Through Photographs, Darkly, Sontag focuses much of her attention on photographer Diane Arbus. Arbus had a passion when it came to photographing people who were out of the ordinary and quite disturbing to most people; This was because she believed that most people focused on others flaws as one of the first things they noticed about them. Sontag explains that she concentrated on victims, "Her work shows people who are pathetic, pitiable, as well as repulsive, but it does not arouse any compassionate feelings." Sontag explains that Arbus's artwork, "... is a self-willed test of hardness. Her photographs offer an occasion to demonstrate that life's horror can be faced without squeamishness." This point offers up an explanation to why her photographs are so entrancing; they catch your eye and you want to look away, but you don't. Sontag explains that her photographs allow you to, "confront the horrible with equanimity."

In conclusion, both chapters from On Photography, were very interesting in the fact that they let the reader examine their own thoughts on photos. Sontag offers up different viewpoints on photography and explains in her first chapter the rise of photography and how we know it today. In the second chapter Sontag looks at photographer, Diane Arbus, and explains how an artist can change how the viewer looks at moments in life due to viewing a picture, and how a picture carries an unimaginable amount of influence over the viewer.

!MORE!

Day by day the corporate world seems to expand, overflow, to fill every seamless nook and cranny nationwide, selling every product know to man-kind. Advertisements are everywhere and impossible not to see, TV, radio, billboards, fliers, signs/posters. Just the other day I was at the dentist office sitting in the reclining chair with the hygienist cleaning away at my teeth, when she lowered the head of the chair down and to my surprise there I was looking straight up at another advertisement. The ZOOM teeth whitening procedure was now available at my very own dentists office! There on the ceiling was a massive poster with attractive couples and best friends all with fresh, gleaming, white as can be smiles staring back at me. I believe that all of this advertising feeds the American culture of BUY BUY BUY, SHOP SHOP SHOP! The movie, The Corporation, focused on many ideas that deal with advertising and branding for the consumeristic American culture. I believe that the corporations have to keep expanding in order to keep their market, there always has to be new, fresh ideas keeping the advertising in the American culture and the advertising also has to marketed for their specific targets.

One of the ways that advertising fits in with the American culture is that they target children. The youth of America is a giant target because they also have to become consumers like previous generations to keep the cycle going. The impact of advertising for children is becoming stronger and stronger as technology becomes more advanced. Everything is thought out how to brainwash children into getting their products. If the youth does not become consumers when they are young, then when they get older and have purchasing power and are not purchasing, what would corporations do? The movie The Corporation shows all the work that goes into marketing for children; how many studies are done, what draws kids attention, the use of child psychologists...the list goes on and on, but it is very clear that in order to keep the idea of the consumeristic American culture, it is essential that you must convince the youth that they to buy what they see advertised.

The other idea that the movie, The Corporation, showed was the need to expand companies and make more product, and to out beat products with newer products. The movie showed that so many of America's brand names are not made in America, they are made in places where they can get cheap labor, so they can make more output for a fraction of the price than it would cost them here in the U.S. The corporations are not thinking about anyone besides themselves, total disregard to everything except what will benefit the corporation. In terms of culture this is relevant because this idea quickly resonates within the purchaser, that nothing matters except wearing that brand and buying those certain products, with no care about how the product was made or what the company that makes it stands for. It is a harsh reality that revolves around the idea of more more more, "keeping up with the Jones'. "

In conclusion, I feel that the movie, The Corporation, dealt with many issues surrounding the American culture. The two examples I found that demonstrated this were first, advertising to children and hooking them into wanting their products and teaching them to think with a consumeristic brain continuing the cycle of the buying and shopping culture we have created, and second by showing how corporations branch out and create the mentality of more is better, whether it is right or wrong.

-No Logo Response-

Culture Jamming, sound familiar? Not to me, at least before reading sections of Naomi Klein's book, No Logo. I now know that culture jamming is a term revolving around the idea of breaking up mass culture, mostly in advertising, by distorting advertisements. Her book encompasses the universal truths in the advertising business and how culture jamming fits into the world of advertising. The two key ideas that I found to be intriguing in No Logo were, first the idea of culture jamming and how it is used, and second the idea of of culture jamming and "Adbusters" becoming its own brand and its own advertisement

The first idea, of culture jamming and how it is used, is very interesting. Klein explains that culture jamming is not a new idea and that it has been around for a long time. She uses the example that in the 1930's the American public was so upset with the consumeristic society that they used "toucher-uppers" to disfigure ads that displayed items/ideas that they viewed as unrealistic and had resentment toward. Culture Jamming today is seen everywhere, advertisements (that the culture jammers changed), commercials (TRUTH:anti-smoking commercials), on the Internet, and any other place people can share their ideas. Today culture jamming is easier with the current technology; with programs like photo-shop disfiguring ads and making them look very believable, as in they could have been made that way, is not too difficult for some culture jammers. Klein states, "Rodriguez de Gerada's messages are designed to mesh with their targets, borrowing visual legitimacy from advertising itself. Many of his "edits" have been so successfully integrated that the altered billboards look like the originals, though with a message that takes viewers by surprise." I believe that statement is critical in grasping that with today's technology culture jamming could have even more of an effect because people may have to THINK, they may have to actually ask themselves, "is that real, is that what I'm seeing?" and maybe they may uncover some truth that they did not see before.

The second idea that I found in Kleins book, No Logo, was the idea that culture jamming and "adbusters" was becoming in itself a brand and an advertisement. In, No Logo, it explains that their are produced t-shirts, key chains, calenders, coffee mugs, everything devoted to ad busting, when the point of culture jamming was not to become its own advertisement, but to literally BUST others! She explains that the magazine "Adbusters," has been criticized by others saying that it has been turned into a, " home-shopping network for adbusting accessories." I found this humerus because to me it is going away and taking away from everything culture jamming stands for!

In conclusion, No Logo was a very informative reading that made me start to look more critically at advertisements. The points that I found most interesting were revolved around what culture jamming is today and where it was in the early 1900s and the idea of culture jamming as its own brand, going up against everything it believes.

Ohman & Adorno/Horkeimer Response

After completing the reading, "Selling Culture," by Ohman and thinking about our class discussion on the Adorno and Horkeimer reading, "The Culture Industry," I noticed some striking differences. The article by Adorno and Horkeimer was very straightforward and repetitive. The examples they used to back up arguments seemed non- relatable. The article by Ohman was well written and backed up with many historical examples to rectify their points. Ohman's arguments seemed much more open-minded and identifies many factors of a whole.

My first point is that Ohman article is more open-minded. He does not point the finger at one person, but understands the different facets of mass culture; he understands the transitions and natural progressions of life. In the article, "Selling Culture," he states, "I would venture to say that no major form of cultural production ever springs at once from the brain of a single person: television plagiarized from radio and the movies, radio took its content from newspapers, vaudeville, and the concert hall; moviemakers drew upon a variety of entertainments like the photograph, stereopticon, and magic lantern, which appealed through their re-representation of real life." Ohman explains that the industrial revolution was a huge movement dealing with mass production, which made commodities available. He states, "...national advertisers helped to create the new way of life, as well as seizing the opportunity it offered them...But I hope to have shown that it would be wrong to think of the 1890s advertising as "producer-driven" in a simple sense." Whereas Adorno and Horkeimer state, "The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly...as it's violence becomes more open, so it's power grows. " They explain through their article that the "people at the top" control the culture,” Capitalist production so confines them (consumers), body and soul, that they fall helpless victims to what is offered them.''

Another point that differs from Ohman and Adorno /Horkeimer is their view on manipulation. In, “The Culture industry,” readers are constantly bombarded with ideas of manipulation and domination as shown when they state, "Furthermore it is claimed that standards were based in the first place on consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result is the circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever stronger." Whereas in Ohman's writing he clearly states that there is consent by consumers, not a cycle of manipulation, "...the hegemonic process, when it is working well, is a system of rule that depends on widespread, active consent more than force or manipulation." He also states, "I hope to have said enough to show that the theory of hegemony ...is distinctively different from both modernization theory and manipulation theory. From the former, it differs in describing the media and mass culture as channels of domination...”

In conclusion after critically examining both articles, I found two central differences between Ohman's article, "Selling Culture," and Adorno and Horkeimer's article, "The Culture Industry." The differences were focused on who influenced/controlled culture, which Ohman gave a broad range for many influences and Adorno and Horkeimer addressed only people of power and control, and if culture itself was being manipulated, which Ohman did not believe was occurring and Adorno and Horkeimer truly believed that manipulation was happening.