Project

http://prezi.com/yt6eywkskuhe/military-image/

Response 2

So, it seems my second response did not post. I will have it up soon. Hopefully, it I saved it at home. Rawdle Rawdle!

Three

Audience, Context, and Purpose.

Media studies has its own sub-genres/fields of study. That spend time discussing these three items. Yet, how do you address these three items on a grand scale? 

Uno

The term "Media" no longer applies simply to a visual production that streams in through an electronic device:

DVD's, Streaming Internet, Cable, and Analog/Digital TV waves.

Prior to this class, Media only encompassed those visual arts. The history of technology and its development were never present in anyway shape or form when I addressed the topic. Now it has become the predominant concept that rushes to the front mind when I think about the subject. Media and mediation are a compound system that build upon on another hand in hand with technology. Each technological advancement provides a new realm in which to create something new and change the way in which an item is presented.

However, these changes/advancements in technology have always been met with some form of resistance from popular culture. For me, this is probably the strangest concept that we have come across. Why fight what is good for you? Then again, as most of the media scholars have pointed out with the good the bad has followed. The bad in these cases has greatly overwhelmed the good. 

Reflections 12

I think I have the week right. I have read everyone feed back. I need to focus in on defining the issues and maybe adding a break down of the acronyms. I am still trying to sort out if I need to make this personal. Maybe an intro explaining my time with the military. I was surprised as to how easy this is going for me. So, Anne, Thank you for the idea! I am still trying to figure out how to incorporate my final project into this. Maybe a slide show as to how the image of the soldier has evolved. Male and Female.

Draft

Richard A. Slemp       

Rough Draft

The United States Military is a force that is structured around rank, tradition, and has a rich sub-culture that is inherent within the system. During Basic Training, Drill Sergeants teach new recruits basic soldiering abilities:

·      Basic Rifle Marksmanship

·      Weapons Maintenance

·      Drill and Ceremony

·      Uniform regulations and professional demon

Drill Sergeants also preach that, “There is no sex, race, or gender. There is only sea of green and those around you are your family.” The purpose of this is to set a standard in which everyone can adhere to in order to maintain said standards regardless of the individual’s status. Even though the United States Army has been around since June 14^th, 1775 and has undergone a multitude of changes in structure, female soldiers are still not allowed on the battlefield and are kept in supporting MOSs.  The majority of NCOs are African-America. Officers and Warrant Officers are predominantly Caucasian. Segregation, sexism, classicism are still very much a part of the system.  

Military regulations, technical manuals, and guiding creeds are supposed to be written without sex being in the forefront of the writers mind. This removal of gender is meant to reinforce the idea that a soldier is only there uniform and their job.  Unfortunately, this is not the case. By analyzing and comparing sentence construction, images, and word choice, one can see the issues that arise: (define issue)

Some of what is included is based drawn from my experience with the United States Military. I spent 4 years as a 88 Lima (Watercraft Engineer) at Fort Eustis, Va. (needed/relevance)

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to analyze United States Army, regulations, technical manuals, and monthly publications in order to show the way military writers construct gender, sexuality, and the military mindset. Also, through this analysis the contradictions between military publications and the guidelines will be analyzed.

Army Regulation 670–1:Uniforms and Insignia Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia

Image and appearance in the United States Army is so highly regulated that it requires a 337-page document to explain. AR 670-1 is structured in a manner that it addresses the human physic beginning with the head and working its way down. Each section addresses the human anatomy based on the sex of the individual then dictates what is appropriate for the person to wear in relation to the sex of the individual. (I use the term individual loosely here. There is not meant to be one true individual just the sex of the person reading the text.)

The text also creates archetypes or a written visual image of what an ideal soldier should look like. Room for individual style is kept to a minimum, a template with only a small number of interchangeable pieces if you will. The purpose of this is to remove sex, sexual desire, masculinity and femininity from the work place. By removing these items from the work place the United States Military attempts to create a collective of functioning personnel working towards a similar goal. The best comparison I have is worker antsThere is some wiggle room for the soldier though. As we interpret our day to day lives, military text can have liberaties taken with…(trash this later keep in mind while writing) These guidelines also dictate what soldiers can and cannot wear even during their personal time:

1–13. Wear of civilian clothing

a. Civilian clothing is authorized for wear when off duty, unless the wear is prohibited by the installation commander in CONUS or by the MACOM commander overseas. Commanders down to unit level may restrict the wear of civilian clothes by those soldiers who have had their pass privileges revoked, under the provisions of AR 600–8–10.

b. When on duty in civilian clothes, Army personnel will conform to the appearance standards in this regulation, unless specifically exempted by the commander for specific mission requirements.

This does not stop at clothing:

c. Body piercing. When on any Army installation or other places under Army control, soldiers may not attach, affix, or display objects, articles, jewelry, or ornamentation to or through the skin while they are in uniform, in civilian clothes on duty, or in civilian clothes off duty (this includes earrings for male soldiers). The only exception is for female soldiers, as indicated in paragraph 1–14d, below. (The term “skin” is not confined to external skin, but includes the tongue, lips, inside the mouth, and other surfaces of the body not readily visible).

d. Females are authorized to wear prescribed earrings with the service, dress, and mess uniforms.

(1) Earrings may be screw-on, clip-on, or post-type earrings, in gold, silver, white pearl, or diamond. The earrings will not exceed 6 mm or 1⁄4 inch in diameter, and they must be unadorned and spherical. When worn, the earrings will fit snugly against the ear. Females may wear earrings only as a matched pair, with only one earring per ear lobe.

(2) Females are not authorized to wear earrings with any class C (utility) uniform (BDU, hospital duty, food service, physical fitness, field, or organizational).

(3) When on duty in civilian attire, female soldiers must comply with the specifications listed in (1) above when wearing earrings, unless otherwise authorized by the commander. When females are off duty, there are no restrictions on the wear of earrings. (Page 6)

To draw further inference from this block quote and address the issues of masculinity and gender, one must analyze the structure of the writing.

“When on any Army installation or other places under Army control, soldiers may not attach, affix, or display objects, articles, jewelry, or ornamentation to or through the skin while they are in uniform, in civilian clothes on duty, or in civilian clothes off duty (this includes earrings for male soldiers).”

Male soldiers are not even allowed to accessorize off duty; even though female soldiers on duty are highly regulated, they are allowed to wear earrings. Off Duty they are allowed to wear what they please. Female soldiers are granted individuality based upon their sex. As to where male soldiers are expected to be further removed from society. The parenthesis indicates a marginalization of male individuality. As if, the idea of a male wearing earrings should not even be a thought but foot note in the males mind only to be addressed in the most miniscule sense. For both male and female soldiers, the idea of body modification is marginalized.

Personally, I have two-ear piercings; during my time with the military, I wore them in public. Prior to arriving to the front gate of Fort Eustis, I would remove my earrings. If they were left in my ear, I would be forced to remove them. On occasion, if a NCO was working, he would take my name, rank, unit, and squad leaders name. Then place a call and inform them of the infraction. (Personal stories needed? Probably not)

Reflection

I could actually go for a more in depth work shop if possible. Maybe some group work again to bounce ideas of one another and do research. I am struggling with my paper topic and getting a good strangle hold on it would be nice.

I am also having a bit of trouble making connections between out theorist and the paper/ how to incorporate them. I know everything is very open for interpretation but I am still wrestling with what to use and how to apply it.

Project

So, I think I wanna role with my masculinity and image idea for the final paper.

I will either be creating a slideshow/ PowerPoint, maybe a flash about the evolution of the male form in media.

I think the medium will choose itself for this more due to time constraints than anything. Given the subject, I think a power point would work better because I could use it along with my paper. Then I would not have to worry about fighting with Microsoft Word and inserting images.

I keep thinking about the statue and the sculpture problem. Will the images I use just be viewed in the same way ans a sculpture is viewed?

First go around

Second Go around

 

I keep coming back to the issue of Audience with my Charts and Graphs. The Audience will have a huge impact on what and how you present you information.  After a lot of thought, I realized the large amount of variables one would have to account for when creating a chart or a graph:

Education

Sub-Culture

Media Outlets

Region of Population

Age Groups

There is a lot to account for and the individual will interpret the data how they see fit. There is a lot to be said for the image itself though and how it is constructed. 

Reflection

Media Culture at the start of class made me think of a sociological perspective. How does one view the society they live and how has media influenced that society. This concept has been touched upon but their has been so much more discussed over the past few weeks. Despite me being a technophile, I never though about how video games, cell phones, and the creation of other technology changed my lifestyle and the world around me. The main concern from most of the readings deal with the idea that media and technology are going to lead us to ruin. To an extent I feel that they are right. However, we have just began scrapping the surface of the other side of the coin. I am trying to remove tone and tempo from the texts as I read them, so I do not get wrapped up in the negative image that the author is painting. It is not easy though because it is so easy to get wrapped up in a doomsday story. People in general, I believe at least, find it easier to connect with the negative than the positive because they lack faith in society and the negative out come in turn becomes the easier of the two to understand and believe. Which makes me wonder about did media and technology build the frame in which this house of anger/fear/frustration is built upon.


I would like to return to the ideas of art and image eventually and maybe redo our group work at the end to see how our perspectives have shifted. Image and art , for me, are important because we live in a very visual world and the image, which a few authors have discussed, is the guiding light that aids in the construction of a person psychological schema.


The timing of the class was killing me but that has been resolved for the second half of the semester, no worries there. Other than that.. I had no real solid idea on how this class would go. I had some foresight from last semester but this is a different ball game.

Paper Topic

I had to take some extra time to figure out what I was going to write about. So, I am sorry for the delay on getting this posted. Here are the Ideas I have had so far.

The argument about the suppression and realization of art and media in relation to cultural industry. Maybe go pre-20th century and look at how technology has influenced and changed the artistic community as well.
The invention of the paint tube. Development of canvas, stone, and other mediums. May look at how the medium has changed language as well.

Doing something with the signifier, signified and interpreter. Look at how images in the advertising industry and the development of technology has influenced us as a society/culture. A possible reflection how the representation of the human body has developed over the past century and mutated what we consider beautiful, healthy, and attractive.

One of the other things I have always been interested in is the concept of masculinity and “manliness.” I was unsure of how I would get footing for an approach like this though. How has technology and the culture industry defined “men” and their roles. Also, how has the image, the technology, and media influenced this idea. This stems from my upbringing and me being a father. I was raised in what criminal justice researchers call a culture of “honor”. Were you fight, (insert term for sex here), and drink your way to the top of the food chain due to a lack of opportunity in the work, education, and other activities. I think for this idea I would have to look at specific regions ….not sure what to do.

FIRST, please write on your blog about how (any of) the three readings for the week added new ideas to or challenged your developing sense of "media culture."

The light bulb concept still has my head in a spin. The whole idea that electricity is medium without a message hurts my head since it is used to convey so many messages. It is half of a whole and is just killing me.

Lui or Liu I forget and my book is a.w.o.l. brought up how written script was constructed around the materials that were at hand. This was another item that I could not shake even more so when it comes to art. Artist are restricted by the materials they chose to use, can afford, or exists at the time the art is created. So with modern technology aren't we just etching our stone or moving our brush?

SECOND, on your blog, please offer preliminary summaries of the first six weeks of class. What do you think is most important for you to hold onto from these weeks? What definitions, concepts, or approaches matter most to you? What questions do you carry forward to the upcoming readings?

I have a list of terms I need to work into the wiki when we return to that. I find myself stuck on single words rather than whole concepts. I am not sure why though. Maybe it is because word choice says a lot to me. If someone is going out of their way to use a very specific term to do define a larger concept then that word must have more of a meaning, right? *shrugs*

Not sure what questions I have at this moment. The light bulb thing still has me a bit jacked up.

Communication

I took a class that was about conditioning and learned. In this class we talked about how people learn, retain information, and react to stimulus. It reminded me a lot of chart showing how language works/travels/interacts with people on page 134. Learning, language, and memory can all be quantified to a point. Broken down into a simple diagram showing the basic workings of a concept. Yet, we all know it is not that easy.

I cannot give a person an engine without gas, air, and spark and expect them to get it work. How are we expected to understand language and communication looking at it in such a small clip?

Can't!!!

So, how are we suppose to view it on a grand scale is where I am stuck/

Project

For this project, we decided to analyze a movie trailer for the film, The Royal Tennenbaums. In our initial discussion of movie trailers, we realized that films are often misrepresented as they are mediated by the trailer. The trailer, of necessity, must remediate the film in a much shorter time. Now, while there are time requirements that necessitate this remediation, there are also other factors at play having to do with some of the theoretical work we have been doing; in particular, trailers are positioned to sell a product. Accordingly, any mediation that occurs in a trailer will be focused on those economic considerations more than focusing on fidelity to the film—a film trailer is designed to draw in the crowd and, in so doing, maximize profits rather than provide a summary or accurate representation of the film’s narrative.

Before proceeding, it would be wise to look at the following two videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eg6yIwP2vs&feature=player_embedded


This is the trailer for The Royal Tennenbaums. Note the lighthearted, funny tone. Now, watch this business:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pyBB7y8fDU&feature=player_embedded#at=44

This particular clip from the movie (a more representative clip) shows that the film is not so very lighthearted after all. So, what’s up?

We first approached this trailer through the lens of Adorno and Horkheimer’s (A & H) work. First, we remarked upon how trailers in general must reconstruct movies in a short time period, and, by necessity, narrativity will be effected. In this particular trailer, however, there was a radical reconstruction of the film’s narrative to shift cinematic genres from drama (the film) to comedy (the trailer). According to A & H, one of the functions of the culture industry is to simplify human interactions and responses to human interactions to the point of reification: “The most intimate reactions of human beings have been so thoroughly reified that the idea of anything specific to themselves now persists only as an utterly abstract notion: personality scarcely signifies anything more than shining white teeth and freedom from body odour and emotions.” To locate this more firmly in the trailer, these actors, who tend to play comedic roles, are not presented as nuanced or occupying the dramatic roles that they, in fact, do; rather, they are pushed more towards slapstick in the mediation of the trailer. This calls to mind some of Drucker’s ideas on attention.

According to Drucker, “art is a way of paying attention.” The trailer, in a sense, forces the audience to pay attention to certain aspects of the film. Indeed, the very design of a trailer is focused on grasping an audience’s attention and piquing curiosity in just 2-3 minutes. Through the use of music, editing, character representation, and narrative representation (i.e., the trailer is not a reproduction of the narrative’s linearity of the film) the trailer’s creators capitalize on the audience’s sense of what to expect given the spaces these elements occupy and/or how these elements function in popular culture. Which begs the question, what sort of exchange is taking place if the mediation (the trailer) is so misrepresentative?

In our discussion, we realized that trailers are fundamentally places of exchange (following Peters). Now, since there is a fundamental misrepresentation that occurs when the film is remediated in the trailer, there seems to be a sizable power asymmetry: the film industry basically misrepresents what it will provide in exchange for the price of a ticket. In effect, there is a bait-and-switch because the audience is presented with all the elements of a comedy (they are shown a “comedy” that they will receive in exchange for their money and time). So, the exchange is, ultimately, farcical. What is ironic, and troubling, is that we know that trailers misrepresent films, yet we continue to be seduced by them…

All in all, our application of these theorists’ work has shown us that this is not merely an academic exercise. It is a reflection on our own culture and our place within in it.

Reflection

What did you learn from composing your analysis? What difficulties faced you in doing analysis of your media object? How might the approaches you chose for performing your analysis carry over to other media objects? What more would you have liked to be able to discuss about your media object?

Well working with Adam was awesome. For once, I was not being the leader of a project and was able to be an aid to someone who had an idea and a plan already constructed. This also allowed me to view someone else write which is something I rarely get the chance to do. We discussed how we present ourselves in the discussion and through the blogs. I take a much more liberal approach to these items as to where Adam treats them as he were writing an academic paper for later research. Essentially, we have similar personalities which was helped a lot with the collaboration. However, the differences in which we approach this line of work are very different. That alone was enthralling. As I sit here writing this, I am able to look at what we created and look at the process in which we created it. There was a lot of witty banter, scribbling, rambling on my part, and fine wordsmithing on his part.
All in all, it was fun; however, it also raised questions for me. Mainly, what is the correct lens in which to view a media object?

Initially, we began viewing the trailer as a recreation of the narrative to skew the film to change its genre. Then it shifted to how the actors are presented in order to keep them in their stereotypical roles so the viewer could connect with the icons. After that, we shifted to an economic lens to see how these two different shifts would affect ticket sales. We made great use of the ideas presented by the theorist noted in the blog post.
I think if we are able to do this again, I can make great use if the waffling that occurred in our discourse. Find a point that works then turn it 90 degrees and see where that take you. Study, analyze, write, and repeat. Eventually, you will have to come to an end but where that ending may occur is uncertain.
H
ad my brain been fully functional yesterday, I would have liked to shred this film via Benjamin. There was talk about the cult and there are cult films. Are cult films disappearing because of the way trailer are mediated? How is the reproduction of the narrative into a trailer changing the movie going experience and the industry? Things like that appeal to me.

Hang ups

I posted my one big hang-up in the discussion forum. Now that I look back to my beginnings in the realm of English Studies, Barthes and his concept behind myth was something that I have been dealing with since English 101 with Sean Lewis. It came up again in 205 with Dahlia, Theory with Petro, LGBT with Kalter, last semester with you in experimental lit, and it is rearing its ugly head again. I feel though I have a solid grasp on it now that I have taken the time to look back. The best way I can summarize my understanding of it is to refer to Samuel Delany's "Tales of Neveryon" and the story of Old Venn.

In this chapter Venn is teaching writing and language to a child. The child states that she could write things down and ruin someone. Old Venn tells the child that language is powerful and if used improperly it can corrupt and destroy someone.

That is what I am getting from all of this. We are in a power struggle with something of our own creation that can lead us to our own demise faster than anything else. In the scope of modern media we can use it to make kings and bring to power someone unexpected. Our current president is a good example of this. Who was he before Oprah sponsored him? The media appeal and the language that she used to support Big O and his cause is uncanny.
I reflected even more so on my current position in life. Without a basic understanding of the myth, how to communicate, and language I would be nothing. It is weird. Then I looked to my upbringing in the south and kind of laughed. Not because of the educational system but because of how I speak. I say perbatim instead of verbatim. Which has nothing to do with my understanding of language, intelligence or knowledge; however, I am still criticized for the way I speak.

I am off on a bit of a tangent here and will come back to the other two readings later. I forgot my book at a different house.

Reflect



The last two weeks I have offered contextualization of both the Benjamin and the Adorno and Horkheimer readings; have those contextualizations been helpful? What else might I do to help you prepare to read?
I have really gotten a lot out of the reading prompts. A coupon for a free coffee would be nice.


Have the prompts and questions in the discussions (D2L and ning) been helpful for you?
Sometimes they are a bit confusing. It could just be me though. I am still acclimating to the new way for thinking. (By the way I will never complain about the nudging in the right direction) The Romance question prompt threw me for a loop...but it worked for other. ....it really depends on your perspective as the reader.


Am I setting rigorous enough expectations, and helping/encouraging you to read and think alertly and in depth?
I think I gave stopped thinking. Not in a bad way though. I guess I have just stopped worrying about right and wrong and focused on developing an idea in order to understand the text. So I guess that is a big check!


Is the overall tone of class conducive to your learning and thinking?
Everything is pretty straight forward so yes. I do wish there was a printer friendly syllabus!


Is there anything else about the structure and workings of class that could better support your learning?
I think maybe every three week we should try and read each others blogs. That way if we are really stuck on an idea we may find some help.

Mass Media & Exchange

Where to begin.

Mass Media
"The historical tendency of the past two centuries has been to push the speed of delivery to zero and size of audience to infinity."
The article discusses time and space relationships in corresponding to the viewer. However, the new purpose of mass media is to do what the quote above says. Regardless of the space the viewer inhabits or the time in which they are viewing such media. Everything, essentially is going to have to become digitized though in order to accomplish this goal. Once this occurs though the power structure of the world become threatened. People have access to anything, everywhere at any time; therefore, those who regulate and control the public will have to also manage the digital realm in order to keep power. That what I took from the article.
Exchange

The visual economy and giving worth to items that have no value other than being pretty. This is what the article discussed and it explained how this idea has evolved. It also discussed the blood bond and blood payment. What I took from this on was the arbitrary nature of the exchange and of money. Ron Paul is actually pushing for the gold standard again. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/369835/january-04-2011/gold-faithful---ron-paul---david-leonhardt

A&H

"Even today the culture industry dresses works of art like political slogans and forces them upon a resistant public at reduced prices; they are as accessible for public enjoyment as a park. But the disappearance of their genuine commodity character does not mean that they have been abolished in the life of a free society, but that the last defence against their reduction to culture goods has fallen. The abolition of educational privilege by the device of clearance sales does not open for the masses the spheres from which they were formerly excluded, but, given existing social conditions, contributes directly to the decay of education and the progress of barbaric meaninglessness"

I really enjoyed this statement. I am a consumer as we all are. I will spend time comparing and contrasting products to find the best deal and the one that will last the longest. I will wander around a store aimlessly just to get out of the house. I watch films rather than read books. I play video games and goof around on facebook. A life filled with distraction. This time could all be used towards better means which would elevate me in many standings. I am changing some habits and leaving some the same but overall we are creatures off comfort and products of the world in which we were raised. This is the point I think A&H are making.
We as a society crave distraction and the corporations and the government is happy to give it to us. It allows them to keep us under control and uninformed. The ....story A&H are telling is as old as the coliseums. The coliseums were the first spectacle, the first distraction, and the first form of mass media/entertainment. However, there use to be "fine art", art that required skills and a specific technique and it was revered. That has even changed. We used to require skilled actors for plays, then we needed pretty faces for film and now we looks for the most horrendous human beings we can find for reality T.V. in order to live our lives vicariously through them. Despite the fact, that the individual could possible accomplish this life themselves.

The article made me take a step back and self reflect, which is what is spawning these ideas. So mission accomplished A&H.