I recall getting my first cell phone and the salesperson said, “This phone has text messaging capabilities.” My parents didn’t really know what that meant and neither did I, but I shortly learned all about text messaging. In Wendy Warren Austin’s essay “Text Messaging: Rhetoric of a New Keypad,” she discusses the limitations to text messaging and also what makes it so appealing. The main limitation she discusses is the fact that each message can only hold about 160 characters per message (104). There is no question that the character restriction limits the context of the message, but there are ways around the limitation as well. If I have a longer message to type I just continue to type and send the message in multiple pieces. This used to be somewhat of an issue because the order of the messages could get jumbled in the sending process, but over time I think most companies have fixed those problems and now multiple messages send with ease.
Austin also brings up the point that many buttons need to be pushed for each and every word (104). I don’t know if she considers that to be a limitation because she later argues that once someone is comfortable with the keypad, they can type text messages quickly and efficiently. I consider myself an avid text messager. It took some time to get to know the keypad, but once I was familiar with it I preferred typing text messages to talking on the phone. Now, most phones have the T9 option, which guesses the word that is being spelt out so the person doesn’t have to push as many buttons.
Personally, I find text messaging convenient and simple. I know there are others who will argue with me. In her last short paragraph, Austin finishes her essay by writing in “text message speak.” I think the message is an over exaggeration of how people really type messages, but she bring up a good point. “Will text message speak and academic language overlap?” I don’t think it does, but it is important for text messagers to understand when it is acceptable to use “txt msge spEk” and when it is necessary to use academic language.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Hyperreal
Jean Baudrillard in his article titled “Hyperreal” makes the argument that our images are abstractions of reality.
Baudrillard says that today due to such devices like Photoshop and other image altering devices our view or sense of reality has changed. This sense of reality has changed because we make sense of reality through the image instead of viewing reality and then creating the image. I believe this is true especially in regards to how people view themselves and their body image. How often do we look to the celebrities or brand name fashions to determine how to look or how to dress? We look to the image to find out reality.
Another point that Baudrillard makes is that when reality does not line up to the image then we get frustrated because the promised outcome was not given. This reminded me again of the body image example because when we are told we should look a certain way and we do not then we are disappointed because we can’t live up to the expectation of the image.
Baudrillard say, “Reality no longer has the time to take on the appearance of reality. It no longer even surpasses fiction: it captures every dream even before it takes on the appearance of a dream” (340). I found this statement interesting and made me think about how even our dreams of the future or success etc. are filtered first through the image, so reality has no space to live so to speak.
I struggled with the argument put forth by Baudrillard, but at the same time, I can see how the reality of our society is shaped by the image rather than the other way around.
Baudrillard says that today due to such devices like Photoshop and other image altering devices our view or sense of reality has changed. This sense of reality has changed because we make sense of reality through the image instead of viewing reality and then creating the image. I believe this is true especially in regards to how people view themselves and their body image. How often do we look to the celebrities or brand name fashions to determine how to look or how to dress? We look to the image to find out reality.
Another point that Baudrillard makes is that when reality does not line up to the image then we get frustrated because the promised outcome was not given. This reminded me again of the body image example because when we are told we should look a certain way and we do not then we are disappointed because we can’t live up to the expectation of the image.
Baudrillard say, “Reality no longer has the time to take on the appearance of reality. It no longer even surpasses fiction: it captures every dream even before it takes on the appearance of a dream” (340). I found this statement interesting and made me think about how even our dreams of the future or success etc. are filtered first through the image, so reality has no space to live so to speak.
I struggled with the argument put forth by Baudrillard, but at the same time, I can see how the reality of our society is shaped by the image rather than the other way around.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Natural Attitide and Shelby Lee Adams
While reading “The natural attitude” by Norman Bryson it was easy to see that the chapter is very relative to what we are trying to figure out. What we are trying to figure out is whether or not images can really be considered real. The role of art can be seen as giving reality itself, but what is really true? As a culture, it seems like western society embraces the fact that images are just a substitute for reality. We settle for an image if we cannot experience the real thing. Yet at the same time, we are very judgmental about what art is and what it means. Bryson forces us to ask ourselves whether or not images are simply just a reflection back of what reality is.
Images have been around throughout history and have been seen as reflections of the world, but images also shape the world. They shape the world because we rely on images to produce reality. The realities images produce though are not always true. As people, we forget to look at what is really in the image, and we construct false ideas in our minds about where the images came from. We look at images and judge what is in the pictures for example the clothes someone is wearing and it gives us a superficial surface change. Photographs are an expression of the world that shows what is out there, that something may have happened at one time and that’s the way it was. Images though are something that is ever-changing, just like reality.
A real example of a debate over the reality is the work of Shelby Lee Adams. As a photographer, he has spent most of his life and career working on Appalachian family life photography. Debates have been made over whether or not he has depicted the Appalachia family life in the correct way. Some people believe that he has captured how the Appalachian people have lived their life and still live it, while other believes that he has made these photographs to look like something else that never happened. Imagery and photography is so hard to judge about whether or not it is true or real because only the people behind the lens or picture are the only ones who really felt and experienced it. Bryson asks a very challenging question of whether images capture reality, and it may never be able to be answered fairly.
Images have been around throughout history and have been seen as reflections of the world, but images also shape the world. They shape the world because we rely on images to produce reality. The realities images produce though are not always true. As people, we forget to look at what is really in the image, and we construct false ideas in our minds about where the images came from. We look at images and judge what is in the pictures for example the clothes someone is wearing and it gives us a superficial surface change. Photographs are an expression of the world that shows what is out there, that something may have happened at one time and that’s the way it was. Images though are something that is ever-changing, just like reality.
A real example of a debate over the reality is the work of Shelby Lee Adams. As a photographer, he has spent most of his life and career working on Appalachian family life photography. Debates have been made over whether or not he has depicted the Appalachia family life in the correct way. Some people believe that he has captured how the Appalachian people have lived their life and still live it, while other believes that he has made these photographs to look like something else that never happened. Imagery and photography is so hard to judge about whether or not it is true or real because only the people behind the lens or picture are the only ones who really felt and experienced it. Bryson asks a very challenging question of whether images capture reality, and it may never be able to be answered fairly.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Natural Attitude
Norman Bryson’s essay, “The Natural Attitude”, made me think in a different way about how I view images. Before reading this essay, I believed that images were constructed to be a substitute for the real. After reading Bryson’s essay I second guessed my beliefs and wondered if images give us a sense of what reality should be as opposed to what it really is. I am trying to think back to a time when I saw an image and it reminded me of something I had previously seen. More often than not, images make me want something to happen. For example, when I see pictures of a landscape it is not like anything I have ever seen. I would love to see a beautiful city scene like starry night, but in my experience that scene isn’t reality; the image is constructing reality. The funny thing is, is that we as readers of images just instantly believe what the image is telling. We never question why something is the way it is. We just accept it.
I thought a lot about how style affects an image. He brings up the idea that style can be considered noise and distracts the reader from the purity of an image (28). That argument depends on what the reader believes the purpose of an image is. If the sole purpose of an image is to give a picture of reality then yes, style would be considered distracting. But, on the other hand, someone believes that an image constructs reality than style would an interesting take on what reality could be. The important thing that illustrators need to consider is, what does the audience want to see? Once that question is answered then the style can be added or taken away to form a perfect image. That is the role of art.
I thought a lot about how style affects an image. He brings up the idea that style can be considered noise and distracts the reader from the purity of an image (28). That argument depends on what the reader believes the purpose of an image is. If the sole purpose of an image is to give a picture of reality then yes, style would be considered distracting. But, on the other hand, someone believes that an image constructs reality than style would an interesting take on what reality could be. The important thing that illustrators need to consider is, what does the audience want to see? Once that question is answered then the style can be added or taken away to form a perfect image. That is the role of art.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Ways of Seeing
John Berger in his chapter “Ways of Seeing” looks at different ways of seeing, and how what we see helps us to interpret different things. He shows how seeing comes before words. The images are the things that help us interpret culture. One aspect in the chapter that really stuck out to me was when he discussed how the camera changed people’s view of the centre of the world.
Instead of a painting being unique for where it resided and it could never been seen at more than one location, the camera changed this and made everything reproducible. Berger says in regards to this reproduction of the painting that, “as a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings.” I found this statement interesting because copies of paintings do seem to downsize the original uniqueness of the painting and make it seem less important because we’ve seen it a billion times in copies. Berger goes on to say that another effect of the camera being able to reproduce is that “the meaning of the original work no longer lies in what it uniquely says but in what it uniquely is.” Today he says that the value is defined in the rarity and what profit it holds. The meaning is lost because the market value overrides everything else.
In conclusion, I think Berger makes a good point when he discusses the abilities for culture today to reproduce famous pieces of art and that they have lost a lot of their uniqueness and meaning. I found this chapter interesting and it made me think about a lot of things and just how I have become desensitized to the great meanings of famous artwork. I do tend to see them as a piece of property that is worth a lot of money rather than viewing them for their uniqueness and depth of meaning because I see replications of them everywhere.
Instead of a painting being unique for where it resided and it could never been seen at more than one location, the camera changed this and made everything reproducible. Berger says in regards to this reproduction of the painting that, “as a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings.” I found this statement interesting because copies of paintings do seem to downsize the original uniqueness of the painting and make it seem less important because we’ve seen it a billion times in copies. Berger goes on to say that another effect of the camera being able to reproduce is that “the meaning of the original work no longer lies in what it uniquely says but in what it uniquely is.” Today he says that the value is defined in the rarity and what profit it holds. The meaning is lost because the market value overrides everything else.
In conclusion, I think Berger makes a good point when he discusses the abilities for culture today to reproduce famous pieces of art and that they have lost a lot of their uniqueness and meaning. I found this chapter interesting and it made me think about a lot of things and just how I have become desensitized to the great meanings of famous artwork. I do tend to see them as a piece of property that is worth a lot of money rather than viewing them for their uniqueness and depth of meaning because I see replications of them everywhere.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Rhetoric of the Image
What makes an image? An image can be defined as an iconic mental representation, but the real question is, is any image a true representation of what it being pictured? Roland Barthes wrote an essay titled, “Rhetoric of the Image,” which challenges us to decide what imagism really is. Imagism has one primary goal of making the picture look real and show realism, but is the saying “what you see is what you get” always true? Barthes looks at what an image truly is, and whether or not text or images are more reliable to the audiences around the world.
Barthes discusses and shows how every image has three levels: the linguistic message, the coded iconic message, and the non-coded iconic message. All three of these levels combined will help the reader understand each image they view. The linguistic message of each image is basically what the audience sees. The colors, the items, the people; whatever is literally in the picture is the linguistic message. The coded and non-coded iconic messages are basically the opposite. The coded iconic is the connoted meaning, as well as the cultural associations that audiences may link to the image. All images are coded. The non-coded iconic is the denoted, literal, or dictionary meaning. Barthes wonders why even though images are supposed to be so good at giving reality, there is normally text captions or descriptions placed alongside an image. Whether it is coded or non-coded though, we all attach certain meanings to every image that we see. Images can be considered difficult because they have a lot of things going on. They are not always so easy to decode all the time and multiple meanings can be attached to any image. Text captions have developed so the audience doesn’t misjudge the image. The linguistic message also has more functions to an image than just the literal picture. The linguistic message acts as an anchor, by allowing the text to make sure the meaning is correct, and then the message is relayed to the audience in the appropriate way. Imagery is something that can be tricky because it is difficult to see whether an image is real or not.
This essay was really interesting to me. I often read magazines, and I saw how Barthes essay related. I looked at some magazines after reading this essay, and I applied the knowledge I learned and realized how true this information is. I thought the saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” also can be related to his essay. I liked this essay a lot and realized how much images can be taken into the wrong context because every audience is different and thinks different. Roland Barthes provided me with new ideas and insights about what makes an image true.
Barthes discusses and shows how every image has three levels: the linguistic message, the coded iconic message, and the non-coded iconic message. All three of these levels combined will help the reader understand each image they view. The linguistic message of each image is basically what the audience sees. The colors, the items, the people; whatever is literally in the picture is the linguistic message. The coded and non-coded iconic messages are basically the opposite. The coded iconic is the connoted meaning, as well as the cultural associations that audiences may link to the image. All images are coded. The non-coded iconic is the denoted, literal, or dictionary meaning. Barthes wonders why even though images are supposed to be so good at giving reality, there is normally text captions or descriptions placed alongside an image. Whether it is coded or non-coded though, we all attach certain meanings to every image that we see. Images can be considered difficult because they have a lot of things going on. They are not always so easy to decode all the time and multiple meanings can be attached to any image. Text captions have developed so the audience doesn’t misjudge the image. The linguistic message also has more functions to an image than just the literal picture. The linguistic message acts as an anchor, by allowing the text to make sure the meaning is correct, and then the message is relayed to the audience in the appropriate way. Imagery is something that can be tricky because it is difficult to see whether an image is real or not.
This essay was really interesting to me. I often read magazines, and I saw how Barthes essay related. I looked at some magazines after reading this essay, and I applied the knowledge I learned and realized how true this information is. I thought the saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” also can be related to his essay. I liked this essay a lot and realized how much images can be taken into the wrong context because every audience is different and thinks different. Roland Barthes provided me with new ideas and insights about what makes an image true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)