inclass #3

Jeremy Keen

In-class Essay #3

3/10/10

The effects of the internet and its fast pace information processing are causing the loss of some vital social and personal skills.

In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he explains his views on many facets of the internet’s effects on daily life. Carr opens his article with an ominous paragraph from the end of Stanley Kubrick’s movie 2001: A space Odyssey where HAL, a super computer, pleads for its life. As astronaut Dave Bowman disconnects the memory circuits that control HAL’s artificial brain “Dave, my mind is going.” HAL says, longingly “I can feel it. I can feel it.” Carr whole heartedly agrees with these words as he states “Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry…” Then he goes on to talk about his theory, that the internet is changing the way he thinks and processes information. Carr explains that he now he finds it harder to stay focused on books and long articles, finding that his mind begins to wander looking for additional stimuli. The kind found when “surfing the net,” quick clicks to hyperlinks, while scanning headlines and blog posts.

Learning new thoughts and new ways of thinking to find answers to questions faster is the goal of most people today. The brain is made to learn and adapt to any new stimuli that is continuously used. The more times we do any function the better we get at it. The neural pathways begin to wire together for faster retrieval and processing. So Carr’s assumption that something or someone is tinkering with his brain is correct, but that someone is himself. Always remember that anything done repetitively causes a change in the thought process. Good or bad our brain can be programmed to process anything in any way as long as it keeps being inputted the same. This is why vigilance on is the key to keeping any good habits that you have and want to keep. Every small seemingly insignificant nicety we do with and to each other can be learned or unlearned. When was the last time you saw a man open a door for a lady? The best of our habits can be lost with ease when they are not being repeated and reinforced.

It is not all loss when talking about mental capacities and functions, the brain has a great recovery rate of functions that were learned and not used. Just think about the habit you want to renew and do it the more times you do it, reading a long story or practicing good manners it makes no difference, it will get easier to remember and become second nature in no time. As for Mr. Carr if he really wants to change my suggestion is to take down time in life, relax and slow down the input stimuli and allow some deep time with his books.

Youngblood: Camera vs Gun

Elizabeth Barret’s documentary film, “Stranger with a Camera”, examines the responsibilities of the stranger behind the lens. This documentary is filmed in the depths of the Appalachian Mountains in a poverty stricken Kentucky coal mining town. It documents the events of 1967 which took place there and a story of two strangers who shared an unfortunate connection. One of the strangers held a camera, while the other held a gun. The confusion and chaos between the two strangers escalated to the death of the photographer, Hugh O’Connor, after being shot in the chest. This tragic story caught media attention from around the globe, but in Barret’s documentary we see the story from both perspectives and justice is given to where it is deserved. In the 60’s Conner had been hired to produce a film about poverty in America. They set off in search for the ideal “poster children” for the war on poverty. Connor was a good man and a great film director for the National Film Board of Canada. Their efforts to find the right photo lead Connor to a small town called Letcher County.

While in town they found many opportunities to document the people and the life of those affected by poverty. However, many people started to get sensitive about all the photos since a majority of them depicted the poverty of the town. People were worried that the worldwide media attention would bring upon a negative perspective of the town. However, on his way out of town he located a perfect photo opportunity alongside of the road. The shot was of a coal miner sitting on a porch with his daughter. The miner had just come home from work and was dusted in coal from head to toe. Conner asked the miner, permission, and then started taking shots. Meanwhile Hobart Ison, the owner of the house, drives by and spots Connor on his property. Ison, who is a local, has come to despise photographers and the media because of the recent coverage of the poverty in the town. Outraged he stops and pulls out his gun. From his perspective Connor is trespassing on his land and invading privacy by shooting photos. After warning them he pulls the trigger as they were heading to their vehicle. Connor is shot is the side of the chest, his injuries are fatal. Ison could have handled the situation differently, but was within his rights as the property owner.

Strange Camera

A camera will show what the person behind it wants you to see. They portray their vision of the
picture or footage on to those who are willing to base a book on its cover. In a documentary film by
Elisabeth Barret, Barret shows how back in 1967 this misinterpretation got one film maker killed. In
Appalachia Kentucky some film makers were making a film on poverty in America. Appalachia was a
coal mining town with a smaller population. With the coal companies trying to make the most money
they could they may have monopolized the community. A lawyer by the name of Harry Caudill wrote
an article about how the town was dependent on the coal companies because they owned everything.
Some news agency got a hold of this and decided to visit this small town. They started making films on
the poor side of town. They showed how people in America were living in shacks with barely enough
to eat. They stayed away from the wealthier part of town to only show what they knew would make the
most headlines. Once these pictures of poverty in America got out the president at the time made a
point to go to Appalachia to help his fight against poverty. After the president was their Appalachia got
over whelmed by reporters. They were all there to show the world the poor parts. Local companies and
people felt threatened by all the people coming to “change” the area. One man by the name of Ison
who's family worked hard for the land they owned. He lost his job as the Post Master and had to sell
right of way through his land to the railroad. He lost many of his businesses when some of the coal
companies closed. When some film makers started filming his tenants on his property he told them to
get off. Things escalated and Ison ended up shooting one of the film makers. Ison got thrown in jail.
Some of the community wanted to post his bail. They thought Ison was in the right and a local hero for
what he did. Women would bake him cakes. The courts had to try him in a different place because they
couldn't get a jury. He was sentenced to 10 years but was paroled after only 1. Some have said that this
would have never happened if they would have just asked Ison for permission to film on his property. Film makers just need to show the whole picture not just what helps their cause.

"Stranger with a Camera"

“Stranger with a Camera,” produced by Elizabeth Barrett, is a documentary that focuses on the “inside” and “outside” of this story. There were two main men that she chose to document in her video, one who was an insider to the poverty that was taking place in Appalachia, and one man who was an outsider. Hugh O’Connor was a very successful filmmaker who traveled all over the world to do documentaries. This guy was fearless. He would travel anywhere and everywhere to get a story. He went to a lot of third world countries because he thought it was important that people become aware of all of the hardships that take place around the world. O’Connor was asked to go to Appalachia and document some of the things he saw there because so many people were benefitting from all of the mining that was taking place there, but weren’t aware of all of the suffering that certain people of Appalachia were going through. So, Hugh O’Connor was the “outsider” of this documentary. There was another man named Hobart Ison who was a local in the Appalachian town. Ison was very respected among his peers and the people of his town. One thing about him was that he didn’t want anyone one his property without his permission. He wasn’t all about the public eye being able to see photographs and things like that of the way they lived. He believed that it was personal and he didn’t want to be judged by other people around the world because pictures can be portrayed in a negative manner. He didn’t want to be looked down upon. He was embarrassed. Hobart Ison was the “insider.”

The day that Hugh O’Connor and his crew stepped foot on Ison’s property, was not a good day. O’Connor and his crew walked out and started setting up their equipment when Hobart walked outside with his gun. He started shooting and right away all of the men started to run back to their car. Right as O’Connor turned around to say that they were leaving, Ison shot and killed him. It was the day after his son’s 10^th birthday, a very sad day for many people.

This was a very disputed event that took place. Some people of Kentucky liked the fact that their issues were being recognized, and some of the people didn’t think it was other peoples business. In my opinion, it was necessary for O’Connor to be out there and letting the world know that what brought disparity to some was necessary for others (like the Kentucky coal miners). Some of the coal miners would work 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift, and 16 dollars per week. The media can and did bring out powerful and conflicting ideas. A major question that was emphasized was, could filmmakers show poverty without shaming the people of the film? The photographer’s only intentions were only to show what decades of abuse to the land and abuse to the people could do. They only thought that people should be aware of what was going on. On the other hand, the insiders believed that they people were making fun of their values, their family, and their way of life.

lets think of the whole story

In the documentery Stranger With a Camera it goes over many of the differences, similaritys and focuses that are strongly felt and put out into the community. Feelings that almost seem like they shouldn feel something completly different, but the oppions and comments that are said go a completly different direction then what seems like it should be implied.
This story starts with a top producer, Hugh O' Conner, he was on the Film board of Canada and he was working on a documentry. He was working on an IMAx documentry and he elived that soncia change would result from the camera. He felt that by choosing the Kentucky Application region it would say what is wrong with the American dream, but to many of the folk that lived around there they did like what this idea presented, espeally Horbert Ison. Ison felt that O' Conner was an outsider and that by taking these pictures and shots that would "make fun of their family and of their history."(stranger with a camera; Richard Black). Hugh O' Conner was filiming one of the workers and his child, when Horbert popped out and shot O' Conner in the chest killing him. This one picture, the last picture that he took before he died, inspired another thought from what O'conner and Horbert thought. Mason Eldrich, the minor that was in the picture with his daughter, thought that this picture could show something new intirely. He tells us that he thought, "it was not trying to portray nothing...I think it ws for a good cause. I thought they would get some factories i here you see, to where people could get differetn jobs besides working in the coal mines." Horbert did go to trail over this and he ended up going to jail for it, but he got his time shortened and he got out after only a year. I dont know if this is something that i fully agree with because he still killed a man and its still considered murder. He really had no reason to kill him or a real motive then the reason that he didnt like what he was doing. But is this really a reason?
Even though what these pictures portray is huge many different people use it in different contxts. For example,the author of the paper "The mountain Eagle Weekly, Pat Gish, informed us that, " we did not use embaresssing situations in fron of their neighbors" in their paper. They wanted to respect them and they found that anyway they could to make themm feel better about them selves would be good. I very much agree with this because if they are able to pick up a paper that is in their community and see so much more than pictures that could feel embaressin to their neighbor or even to them themselves dosnt really help them but give them a deep troubling anger inside of them to think that this is really what the rest of the world sees them as, and its not the full truth and they will judge on what they see, which isnt the full story.
Overall, there are so many thoughts, feelings and words that can be and will be said in the fight for this story and its an interessting one, becasue of what it says and the meassage tht you can get outa it.
word coutn 567

"Stranger with a Camera"

In Elizabeth Barret’s documentary, “Stranger with a Camera”, she brings into her home, the depths of the Appalachian Mountains in a Kentucky coal mining town. Barret writes a fair representation of two people one from the outside and the other a hard working proud local. Hugh O’Connor was a successful Canadian filmmaker who traveled the world to do documentaries, was asked to go into Appalachia in order to capture the culture that resided. Hobart Ison a local in the Appalachian town stood on the other side of the camera. But Ison never wanted to be captured on film; he didn’t want to be embarrassed across the nation being branded living poor and miserable lives. "I had to do it. What would he have done to me picture-wise and all?” said Ison after shooting and killing O’Connor. O’Connor took his camera and his crew to a piece of Ison’s property being rented by Mason Eldridge. O’Connor stopped by the house after seeing Eldridge in a rocking chair with his baby girl. After kindly asking and getting permission from Eldridge whether he could film him or not, O’Connor began filming. Meanwhile a local woman called and informed Ison. Ison came and Fired to warning shots. While O’Connor was caring his camera to his car he was shot down. Elizabeth Barret as a child grew up in the town while the murder occurred. When filming it was Barret’s goal to provide a film of both sides. To provide the reasons why Ison did what he did, and whether it was necessary. She was attempting to create a film of understanding and closure to the incident. She asks the question, "As someone who lives here, I have an instinct to protect my community from those who would harm it. What are the responsibilities of any of us who take the images of other people and put them to our own uses?" By asking this question she searches for the right and wrong of both sides. Should O’Connor have never gone there to film because it was seen as demeaning by the locals? Should Ison not have killed an innocent man just ignorant of Ison’s property and feelings toward him? People should have the right to film and document but at what point is it enough? At what point is it violating privacy? I believe the situation was just extremely unlucky. People should always allow to document but they first must have approval from the people whom he is documenting. O’Connor being a gentleman went through these motions. However he assumed the property belonged to Eldridge and that’s where things fell through. I think an important lesson to filmmakers must be taken from this story, when filming someone culture they should not just ask for permission but they should also go further to ask what the people of the culture think of his filming. Ison was greatly mistaken to think he had the right to take anyone life however if O’Connor had known or have researched what the people of the town thought of the documentary before filming the result could have been easily avoidable.

"Stranger With a Camera" summary

In Elizabeth Barret's documentary, "Stranger with a Camera", she explores the diverse cultures and understandings of her local community in Kentucky, while giving a fair representation of Hobart Ison’s and Hugh O' Connor's stories. Ison and O' Connor are on opposite sides of the camera lens. Ison is a local, hard working and proud resident of Kentucky's Appalachian region whose biggest fear is being humiliated by his lifestyle; while O' Connor is a well acclaimed Canadian filmmaker who really values his work and was asked to do a segment on the breadth of American experience. "I had to do it. What would he have done to me picture-wise and all?" Hobart Ison says after shooting and killing Hugh O' Connor for trespassing on his property. When one of Ison's tenants-Mason Elbridge-allowed O' Connor and his crew to videotape him and his baby, after a day working at the coal mines, he thought it would benefit the town and bring more job opportunities to the area. Ison felt quite the opposite; he looked at it as an invasion of privacy, and a slap in the face. When Ison was contacted by a local woman that O' Connor was videotaping on his property, he went over and told him and his crew to, "get off my property". He fired two shots, hitting nobody and when O' Connor turned around to tell him they were leaving, Ison shot him. O' Connor's last words were, "Why did you have to do that?"
Elizabeth Barret takes into consideration both sides of the story and realizes that she's on the other side of the camera now and how careful she has to be while portraying the stories. "Can filmmakers show poverty without shaming the people we portray? I came to see that there was a complex relationship between social action and social embarrassment." She asks these important questions to further her search into filmmaker’s points of views and what their films are products of. She also states, "As someone who lives here, I have an instinct to protect my community from those who would harm it. What are the responsibilities of any of us who take the images of other people and put them to our own uses?" Barret questions if we should even be allowed to film such things as people living in poverty and if we should, how far do we take it and how should it be portrayed? I believe that people shouldn't have any right to film without permission from the people or letting them be very aware of what they’re filming for and why. It's a violation of privacy and makes people feel uncomfortable and unaware. Ison shot because he felt threatened and didn't want to face the embarrassment, he felt, of his lifestyle being broadcasted everywhere. What if it was the other way around; if the people in poverty were the ones filming the filmmakers, how would they feel? I believe that if we put ourselves in each other's shoes, we may gain more of a sense of reality as to what's really going on, and how our actions affect others. If, for in order for the truth to be told, it has to be caught on film, shouldn't there be some boundaries to follow in order to protect our rights as human beings? And if there are no boundaries, what will stop other incidents like the Ison and O' Connor one to re-occur?

Stranger With a Camera Review / Ben

In the documentary, "Stranger With A Camera," director and producer Elizabeth Barret is trying to give an equal representation of the poverty stricken area of Appalacia Kentucky. She is trying to make sure that all parts of society are represented equally, because all the previous reports and news crews had failed to do so. All of these attempts wanted to focus primarily on the families and parts of town that were far worse than anywhere or everybody else. Just because parts of town poverty stricken doesn't mean that everybody in the town was suffering according to Barret. During era of depression within the Appalacian Mountains so many horrific scenes were displayed and broadcasts, that anybody who had seen these images believed that this was what every square inch of this area looked like this. So many people think that photography can only depict the bad things, but Barret wanted to show the world that good things still exist during this time of depression. Examples of showing only the bad things would be all the footage created by other reporters that Barret used in her documentary, all the footage seemed to show families and kids with nothing. This footage never seemed to show the families that lived in the area and were still living well off.

I agree with Barret for the most part. I believe that reporters and anyone who is trying to capture the situation so that they can present to the world should capture the whole picture, not just the important parts. But I also disagree because focusing on the bad parts of the society, it was easier for people to realize that this small community was beginning to fail. Therefore, it was easier to get help for these people. I think that there is a fine line between showing the whole situation and just showing parts of it, and that it is critical for reporters and photographers to ride that line. This is a shady area, everybody has different morals that they abide by, so become very difficult to determine whether or not a fair depiction has been given. It isn't fair to the rest of the community to show only the bad parts of it, but then again if you show all the parts of the community equally, viewers will not realize the severity of the situation with the bad parts of society. Barret grew up right in the middle of this "mess", and even though her family was well off, people believed that just because she came from that area of that she was like the rest of the poverty stricken population. She believes that it was not only her duty to her community, but also to her family to show the world the whole picture, not just the bad parts of it.

Stranger with a camera Summary

In the Poverty stricken region called Appalachia that spreads from southern New York to northern Mississippi a local from Kentucky and documentary filmmaker by the name of Elizabeth Barret wanted to take her skill with documentary filmmaking to the next level. To do this Barret took a camera to where she grew up in the Appalachia region of Kentucky. The film is called “Stranger with a Camera” which takes a good look into a murder that shocked the world. Where Barret starts her story is with the death of a film maker by the name of Hugh O’Connor. In the mid 1960 ‘s Hugh O’Connor was hired to produce a film about poverty in America and this brought him to a part of Kentucky called Letcher County where poverty was at a all time high. He was documenting on all of the family that were considered to be living in poverty. On his way out of town he saw a house that caught his eye. He drove up to the house where there was a man sitting on the porch with his daughter by the name of Mason Eldridge who at the time was renting that house from a man named Hobart Ison who was know around the county as a man not to be messed with and to be respected. Eldridge spoke with O’Connor and agreed to let him film him self and his daughter.Ison got word of this and thought that O’Connor was trying to make fun of poor people this is when ISon told O’Connor to leave his property O’Connor was on his way leaving when Ison shot O’Connor in the chest and killed him. Ison was only imprisoned for a year simply because a impartial jury could not be found.
I feel that Ison might have over reacted because O’Connor was leaving and he had agreed to leave but Ison Just shot him anyway. I don’t feel that Ison was out of line thought because it was his property and O’Connor did not ask the property owner for permission. This scenario in the end I think it was a big misunderstanding because Ison jumped to drastic conclusion before he ever really knew what was actually going down also O’Connor thought that Eldridge was the owner when in reality Ison owned the property in which O’Connor was photographing

Summary on " Stranger with a gun"

The video, " Stranger With a Camera" produced and directed by Elizabeth Barret is a documentary on why a person would commit murder on an innocent man who just carried a camera. This video explores what caused this man to go buserk and the culture of the town where the murder was commited. This video takes you into the lives of the people who live there.
Hobert Ison was a man who lived in the little town in Lecher County, Kentucky in the Appalachia Region. He was a very well known man in the town, who helped people out alot. He owned alot of land and didn't like people stepping on his land. As one woman expresses in the video, Hobert Ison was a caring, loving man who everyone liked.
The outsider was a man named Hugh O' Connor who was a highly skilled director of the National Film Board of Canada. O'Connor was a traveling man who wasn't at home very often, according to his daughter. The reason why he traveled so much was because he was, indeed, a photographer who captured rare seen footage, and looked for different cultures, unusual in big cities.
Appalachia was a region which caught peoples eyes in the 1970s. The lands were rich and the people different. The Appalachia people and culture became widely published in the media. This didn't go so well with some people, as they felt that they were being portrayed as being poor, showing only the bad things, not the good. This region was all about mining in the hills, where there was plenty of coal. Every man , if he wanted a job, had to find it in mining. Coal was partly why this area got so much publicity. They wanted to show Americans what miners did and how they lived. Asking the question "is this the American dream".
Hugh O'Connor and his crew of photographers were driving up one road, when they saw a man who just got done working in the mines, was on the porch holding his baby. O'Connor stopped to ask if they might take his picture. The man( Mason Elbridge) said yes you may, no big deal. The photographers found something else very close afterwards that interested them off the side of the road, I'm not sure exactly what it was but they were filming it, when a man(Hobert) drove up and started yelling at the men saying " get off my property", as the yelling continued, Hobert got excessively mad and shot Hugh O' Connor to death. Why? They explain in this video that it was because Ison was a very private man who didn't like people just doing whatever they wanted on his land. Hobert went to jail for this crime that he had commited, but was released after just one year behind bars. Unable to find an impartial jury to hear his trial, they declared a plea bargain. He declared it was self defense, saying" I had to do it. What would he have done to me picture wise and all?" Some say he did right in killing O'Connor, but nothing gives a man a right to kill.


I believe I could talk about how O'Connor went into Hobert's private life and somehow photographed something that he didn't want other people to see. The same is for athletes and actors, who want their lives to be private, but are unable to because we have this media today that looks to pry into anything and everything in one's life for a good story.

Summary and Response to “Strangers with Cameras”

In the documentary directed by Elizabeth Barret titled “Stranger with a Camera” Barret documents the story and events leading to the murder of Hugh O’Connor a Canadian filmmaker in 1967, which took place in Lecher County, Kentucky in the Appalachian Mountains. “Stranger with a Camera” not only shows the context for which the murder of Hugh O’Connor was killed, but shows how communities of the rural Appalachian were affected by the coal mining industry, and the subsequent media inundation of their communities

In 1964 President Johnson declared a “war on poverty” in America, and the rural Appalachian region became the poster with which was shown, the poverty in America. Most of the region and its inhabitants were there to mine the vast amount of coal in the mountains. As the mining become more industrialized, the “area went into disrepair and poverty [and] coal miners were replaced by machinery.” As most of the region’s economy was based on the coal mines, and coal being the main resource in the area, many of the workers became unemployed. Of the workers that still worked for the mining companies, many felt they were being exploited by the industry working in poor conditions and for little pay.

The area had “become a metaphor for all that was wrong with the American dream.” This depiction was seen by media as something that needed to be shown to America. Media began pouring into the area to document the social issues taking place in the area. People in the region mixed feelings about the attention that their communities were receiving. Some were glad that area was being shown, as it could help with social injustices that were taking place there. Others though, like Hobart Ison, were outraged by the depiction of their communities as people who needed saving, and saw reporters and documentarians as “outsiders and agitators.” Hobart Ison, a landlord in the area, did not care for presence of filmmakers on his land. As Hugh O’Connor was filming one of his tenants, (a local coal miner) Ison became enraged, and confronted O’Connor, and as his film crew was leaving, O’Connor was shot and killed by Ison. Ison later stated that he acted in self defense stating that “[I[ had to do it. What would he have done to me picture-wise and all?” Larry Daressa wrote in a review of “Stranger with a Camera”[Ison] clearly believed that he owned what was said about [his land] and about the people that lived on it.” Implying, that he didn’t want his life and those in the community to be portrayed in light that may not be accurate with what he thought of his own community.

Elizabeth Barret brings up very interesting ideas on the effect of media portrayal of that which they are documenting. Do cameras show the whole story of a community when they show people in a social standing. When media is trying to depict a society in a certain light of being different from other societies is the media portraying every part the community. A picture a supposed to show a thousand words, but what if that is not all the words of that community, is that what the people being portrayed would say? What about the pictures that are not being shown? I believe that media needs to be objective in their portrayals of people, media needs to try to see things for all aspects of which their showing. It can be hard thing to do when most of the media have an agenda, showing things in a certain light that best suits their story, makes it hard to be objectionable. That is why Barret has documented the story of this society, to bring into view media’s role in what happened in Lecher County in 1967. Barret as a member and having grown up in the area is able to look at the situation more objectionably, and let you look at all areas of the communities in Appalachia, not just the poverty issues there, but deeper into the actual lives of the people there. Barret does so in a way that makes you able to make your own thoughts on why Hugh O’Connor was killed.

During the sixties the Appalachian region was the image of poverty in America. Lyndon B Johnson had declared a “War on Poverty” there. Bobby Kennedy walked the streets of small eastern Kentucky towns for the cameras show the poverty little kids grew up in. Or at least that is what the documentary filmmakers showed and showing that cost one of them their life. Hobart Ison gunned down Hugh O’Conner an experienced director for the National Film Board of Canada out of fear of how he would represent his land and the area he had lived his life in. In “Stranger with a Camera” documentary filmmaker Elizabeth Barret explores the tension that led up to this murder and what the responsibilities are of the documentary filmmakers when they are representing a group. What had drove LBJ to declare a “War on Poverty” in southeastern Kentucky was the book “Night Comes to the Cumberlands” by Harry Caudill a lawyer that felt that it was necessary to tell about the poverty and how the region was being exploited for its coal. Once the war was declared the area was “inundated with picture takers” (Barret) wanting to capture the poverty to show the world. One of those picture takers was O’Conner a Canadian filmmaker that had been hired to film a piece on the Appalachians for a film called “US” that was going to show the achievements of the country and the underside of the country. O` Conner had spent sometime filming in Lecher County, Kentucky and was on his way out of town when he saw a coal miner sitting on his front porch holding his child still covered in coal dust. O` Conner and his crew stopped and got permission to film from Mason Elbridge to film him and his family. As they were filming Elbridge’s landlord, Hobart Ison, came driving up and jumped out of his car with a gun. He begin to yell, “Get off my property” but the film crew didn’t move fast enough for him so he shot O` Conner in the chest killing him. Mr. Islon’s reasoning for this was he feared character assassination by camera; he feared how he would be represented for renting out shanties and how the region would be represented when all the filmmakers filmed were the poorest people. This leads Barret to ask the question “[w]hat are the responsibilities of any of us who take images of other people and put them to our own uses” (Barret)? This is an interesting question to ask because you can do so much good and yet so much bad with a camera. You can alert the world to a crisis in some far off place or you can condemn a group to be known by a stereotype since that is all that the world ever sees. Colin Low a member of the National Film Board of Canada says it best when he says “a camera is like a gun… it’s threatening” (Low). And like a gun that threat can be equally used to bring about justice or condemnation.

Evidence for Selfe’s Claims

Our group worked with "The Un-Gendered Utopia and the same old gendered stuff" in Selfe’s Article, “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution Images of Technology and the Nature of Change”. One of the main claims in this section is the following: "computers are complexly socially determined artifacts that interact with existing social formations and tendencies-including sexism, classism, and racism-to contribute to the shaping of a gendered society" (Page 306). Evidence to support this claim is provided through an advertisement which can be found on page 314 in the article. This advertisement targets women by implying that Nokia’s Monitors are of class and beauty. Another claim Selfe states in her article is that "men use technology to accomplish things; women benefit from technology to enhance the ease of their lives to benefit their families," (308). I believe that this statement is highly controversial and is a sensitive issue touching on the gender roles in society at the time. Selfe uses yet another advertisement to support her claims. This time she uses an advertisement for Netbooks. The advertisement states “We’re mapping a whole new whole world.” But the image above the writing doesn’t seem to match. The image portrays the power men had over women during the 50’s. The man holds the computer keyboard while his family, child and wife, gather around to watch. This is strong evidence to support Selfe’s claim about gender roles in a family household.

Selfe"s claims

In the essay “ Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution, Images of Technology and the Nature Change” by Cynthia L. Selfe, she claims that our culture is using images of women in traditional roles to advertise technology. Selfe says “ and they are familiar roles-the seductress, the beauty, the mother-all relationships ratified by historical experience, easily accessible to our collective imagination, and informed by traditional social values” (315). She supports this claim with figure 17, a woman gripping the Samsung which shows the role of the seductress. Men are treated with the same stereotypical views as women, “men are shown to adopt the equally traditional and retrograde roles of bikers, nerds and sex maniacs”(316). Selfe uses figure 22 to back up this claim, a man is riding a motor cycle and it says “Easy Rider, Pop a Wheelie On The Internet”(319). Her reasoning for this is Companies are using these stereotypes because it’s easier than breaking the mold. People are able to relate to the roles and clearly understand what the message thats being portrayed.

Selfes Claims

1.Claim: “Quite simply put, like many Americans we hope computers can help us make the world a better place in which to live.” (Cynthia Selfe Lest We Think The Revolution is a Revolution, pg 293)

Reasons/Evidence: Selfe is saying that we are hoping that computers make our world a better place in which to live and in her essay she says a lot about how computers actually hurt the world. She says that English teachers are hoping that computers are going to make students more productive in the classroom and other instructional settings. So as you can see there is a lot of hope that computers will make our world a better place to live in and also make things easier for our teachers. Even former vice president Al Gore said that Global Information Infrastructure would increase opportunities for intercultural, communication among the people of the world. So Gore is one who is also hoping that computers can help make our world a better place.

2.Claim: “We find ourselves, as a culture, ill equipped to cope with the changes that the “global village” story necessitates, unable, even, to imagine, collectively, ways of relating to the world outside our previous historical and cultural experiences.” (Selfe, pg 294-295)

Reasons/Evidence: Some evidence that really supports this claim is all of the ads in the first narrative. She has pictures of people who are a lot different from what we see and are from completely different cultures. They are showing us that we do not try to relate to these people but instead all we do is try to make these people relate to us. We try and give them all of this technology so that they can try and be more like us. Like the ad on page 296 where it shows a man from a way different culture and says we must work together as one tribe, this just shows that we don’t care about their culture we only care about making them be more like us.

Reading Response 7

Nathan Barbo
Eng 100 A
Feb. 23 2010
Reading Response 7
Susan Sontag writer of the book “In Plato’s Cave” argues that, “Recently, photography has become almost as widely practiced 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. Basically Sontag is saying that photography has become very common place, as common place as sex and dancing. She states that photography is rite or a way for power. I could not disagree with Sontag more. Not only do I disagree I also find what she says to be offensive. To take the act of sex and compare it to photography is tragic. I think it speaks to how casually people have come to look at sex. Sex is not widely practiced in the same way as dancing. I think this entire statement is an insult to the sanctity of sex. I recognize we live in times where people miss use sex, but I have never heard it so badly represented. Sex is an act between a husband and wife to bind a couple and procreate. I recognize her article is not about sex but about photography, however I simply cannot understand how she could see photography as a deep bonding experience that binds two people physically, spiritually and emotionally. My disagreement with her continues into her next sentence that photography is a rite of passage or a tool of power. I simply do not see photography as highly as Sontag. I see it as profession, a hobby or a collecting of memories. What concerns me even more is that she seems to state that sex is as mass art form and then goes on to say it is a tool of power. In her attempt to elevate the importance of photography, which I agree has some importance in documenting history and capturing beauty, she has destroyed the importance of sex and miss defined sex.
The countering strategy I used is arguing the other side. I argued against her comparison of sex with photography. I argued that by making this comparison she has not put either thing in its proper place, sex to be sanctified and photography a profession/hobby.

Reading Response #7 Sontag

Susan Sontag wrote a story called “In Plato’s Cave.” She describes how photographs are related to guns in the interpretation that they are predatory. She states, “Eventually, people might learn to act out more of their aggressions with cameras and fewer with guns, with the price being an even more image-choked world.” By this she means that when Joe the Ragman gets pissed off at someone, they won’t shoot them with a gun, they will shoot them with a camera. Joe won’t kill them. Instead, he will have a photograph of them. I don’t believe it will get this far. To me, taking a photograph of someone isn’t very satisfying. I don’t experience any type of catharsis when I take a photo. That emotional all happens when I pull the trigger of a shotgun multiple times. I see a camera as a fun thing. I use it when I want to remember something later on in life. They are happy moments like a vacation or a special occasion (i.e. weddings, parties). Why would I want to remember getting pissed off at someone for something that was really dumb?
Cameras can be used to blackmail someone. For argument purposes, let’s say that Obama has killed someone rather brutally. Also, for argument purposes, let’s say that I witnessed it and took a picture of it with my phone. I could use this photo to fork some money out of him or control the government. The use of camera’s can also be used predatorily in the courts. They offer up some very convincing evidence. That same photo graph I took in the hypothetical situation could be used to land him in jail. This would be the only way I could get satisfaction from taking a photograph. If the photo compromises someone else, it will satisfy me. I know that I am not the only one that feels this way. This leads me to believe that our world is driven by hurting other people. Humans try to accumulate as much wealth as they possibly can. If I hit Joe Schmoes car and I don’t have insurance, I know that he will sue me for the damages. I gave him the excuse to screw me, and he is going to take it. When it comes to possessions, humans get very testy and passionate. People will defend their possessions until it gets deadly.

Response to Susan Sontag Blog-Post

In Plato's Cave, Susan Sontag conveys the idea that photos are becoming the reality instead of real objects and experiences. She feels that “a photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened,” regardless of the fact that photographers manipulate the angle and view of their subject to get that perfect shot, which records the image in a way that distorts the true reality of the scene. Sontag feels that photographs are “no generic exception to the usually shady commerce between art and truth. Even when photographers are most concerned with mirroring reality, they are still haunted by tactic imperatives of taste and conscience.” Meaning that a photographic image does not portray the object like it really is because all the manipulation techniques photographers use to capture their subject in a certain way.
Although I do agree with Sontag that photographers use special angles and tricks to butter up their image, withdrawing from the true physical reality, I think that she overlooks her onlookers and the purpose of particular photographs. Not all photographs are meant to show the looker what a scene looks like in reality. Many photos are taken to show you the feeling of being there. For example, a picture of a waterfall taken at a certain angle can make it seem more vast then it is in real life. But waterfalls are an amazing aspect of life, and being up in a forest somewhere with a small waterfall is still an awesome naturalistic experience. If the photographer can catch the right photo to portray this feeling of nostalgia and pass it on to the looker even though they weren't there, then it is a part of reality achieved that is harder to do in a painting or drawing. Lots of photographers want you to feel the feelings of being in the certain place they are capturing so they thrive to get the best shot. Making a photo seem more dramatic than it is in reality is an attempt to share a part of the scene and a way for the photographer to communicate their feelings of being there to their audience. No the viewer wasn't there, but with the best efforts you can get a tiny taste and leave the rest for longing and imagination. I also think that Sontag slightly overlooks her audience. Today the technological world is full of ways to manipulate photographs and it's almost to be expected now. Lots of people are not naive and automatically assume the photograph is an exact figment of reality. Adobe Photoshop has become a regular partner in lots of photography, and a person is just as likely to comment on an editing style than the actual image, acknowledging that the photograph has been manipulated. Of course there are people who see what they see in a photo and imagine that if they jumped inside it's frames it would be just like that in real life. But overall society is becoming accustomed to the power of technology and the distortions that can come with it.
My second paragraph is a countering paragraph because I acknowledge the truths in Sontag's article but then I go on to explore my own ideas that I think she overlooked. I do not disagree with her statements but I don't think she took into account all the values of photography. At first I came to terms with her passage, then I argued the other side. Being very interested in photography myself I used information from things that I have personally done and seen.

Selfe Claims

In her essay, Selfe claims that technology “would increase opportunities for intercultural, communication among the peoples of the world” (293). Communication efforts are becoming easier for government agencies, corporations, political groups, and information resources. Communication is becoming more accessible, but there are still groups of people who are often being left out of public discussions in other venues. In this article, Selfe also claims that people focus too heavily on the “positive changes that are associated with technology” (293), and take our attention away from real social issues that cannot be solved with technology. There are many good things that come out of all of the new technologies of our world, but at the same time, not everything can be solved with all of these new inventions like many people believe. There are still many world problems that cannot only be fixed by technology, but technology may be worsening them.

Selfe claims

Selfe claims americans often think that the internet will bring about a utopic world in which gender is not a concern or predictor in success in our daily lives (305). She explains that this is not the case. She says that to this day men dominate the computer industry. You don't hear about very many women designing software for microsoft,nor hear of women entering the advanced fields of computer science compared to the number of men. She isn't saying that there aren't any women just that the men far out way the women. To add fewer girls use computers in secondary school enviorments and video games are designed for males specifically.
She also claims that having a un-gendered utopia could be both a good and a bad thing.
She explains "Creating an electronic un-gendered utopia means that we might have to learn how to understand people outside of the limited gender roles that we have constructed for them in this country,..." In other words understanding people would not be nearly as simple as boy or girl and the tendencies of the given gender. Rather everyone would be their own separate entity which we most decipher on our own.

All the ads in the world

The belief is that computers will bring us together is a way that no other way will. Its an idea, a thought, and sometimes a misconception. But can we really come up to all of these levels that the average mind has in store for us?It is even stated by Cynthia Selfe, in her article "Lest we think a revelotion is are revelotion" "In fact, we find ourselves, as a culture, ill equiped to cope with the changes that the "global village" story neccassitiates, unable, even, to imagine, collectivly, ways of relating to the world outside our previous historical and cultural experineces." Trying to keep up with technololgy is the easy part, but trying to tell ourselves that we are all equal on the internet is even easier, but trying to put that idea into pracitice is the hard part. It scares us that we are all equal in some way, shape or form, and thats because of the prejudice that has been going on for so long in our world. Cynthia Self brings up many different addvertisements in her article "Lest we think the Revelton is a Revelution., on page 299 we see one of the many ariticles that she brings up is one with a picture of a women in a rainforest nursing a human child and a monkey on the other breast. This picture is supporting a piece of softwear to sell. It takes us far away from the world that we know, and far away from relatity. It shows us something that we have never seen and draws us in, makes us want to bye it, it tells us if we own this we are helping people like this, but we arnt really. There are thousands more of articles like this in the world, they may not be as extreme like that, but we dont always see them representing "our world and the world we live in. Even Cythinia Selfe mentions this, " Americans, in these four ads, you'll notice, go almost unrepresented in terms of images. Instead Americans are the canny and sophisticated minds behind the tesxt, behid the image, behind the technology." (298-299) We dont put oursleves on these ads, we make these ads for these technologys, which we sell to people like us. When it comes to soemething like this we become very narrowminded and dont really care or put alot of thought into it. We dont really help anyone but the company we are byeing this product from. It circulates in a giant circle and the picture on the ad really has nothing to do with it but catch our eye.

alterations

In the essay “In Pluto’s Cave” by Susan Sontag, she expresses her view photography in a unique and mesmerizing way. A passage I find interesting is:

“Photographs, which fiddle with the scale of the world, themselves get reduced, blown up, cropped, retouched, doctored, tricked out. They age, plagued by the usual ills of paper objects; they disappear; they become valuable, and get bought and sold; they are reproduced. Photographs, which package the world, seem to invite packaging. They are stuck in albums, framed, and set on tables, tacked on walls, projected as slides. Newspapers and magazines feature them; cops alphabetize them; museums exhibit them; published compile them.”

She states how photography is transformed and used in everyday life. Photos often end up in magazines or in photo albums. She states that the pictures are “stuck” making them seem as if they are forced and have no freedom. They are commonly altered and distorted from what they originally were. The technology today with picture workshops and being able to airbrush and change photos has really influenced photography. Sontag shows photography in a negative way, showing the beauty being taken away from it. These pictures can be anything from beautiful to horrifying. Some pictures remind us too much of suffering and began to numb our feelings. They want news to be heart wrenching so they add disturbing photos that stick in your mind. It can also be used for amusement by simply taking photos of your friends or a party you were at last weekend. These experiences become images that we can remember forever. She words it as being souvenirs of our daily life.

Just by reading this passage, she overlooks the positivity of photography. She makes it sounds trapped and warped when the only photos that are retouched are the ones shown on the media. Most of us are aware that the media is filled with unreal beauty and lies. Real photography is the art of taking breathtaking photos of nature or simple innocence. The photos we take with our digital cameras and cellular forms are still images of a memory of an event. It helps us retain experiences that we cannot always remember in our head. Special events such as birthday or our wedding day is a memory we want to hold on to forever. They are stuck in albums and framed because it is something we want to keep safe and have for a lifetime. Some photos are passed on from generations of our grandparents and great grandparents. This is something that resembles our family history and our way of life. I demonstrated the strategy of arguing the other side because I feel Sontag speaks of only the negative side of photos in this passage when really it is a small percentage. The media distorts images because they like the change the image of reality; something we know can never be altered.

Reading Response to Susan Sontag

I read Susan Sontag’s “In Plato’s Cave” in which she talks about almost every aspect of photography and how it has affected our lives and our society. In part of her essay she compares photographs and their effects on people to that of motion pictures. During this she states “Photographs may be more memorable than moving images, because they are a neat slice of time, not a flow. Television is a stream of underselected images, each of which cancels its predecessor. Each photograph is a privileged moment, turned into a slim object that one can keep and look at again.” She then goes on to give examples of situations where photographs have left a lasting image on the American people and claims that in these instances moving images just wouldn’t have done the trick.
While I think that photographs give us strong memories in a sense that they seem almost classic to us I disagree with Sontag’s overall thesis of photographs compared to moving images. I think that the things that stick in our mind are the things that are highly promoted in our society, and in our society moving images are one of those things. Here in America we have almost made pictures seem boring with our emphasis on the fast lane and movies and advertisements seem to fit that profile better. Movies have the ability to keep us enthralled for great lengths of time and therefore can send us a host of messages over the course of a captivating film without ever losing our attention and possibly without us even realizing it. Motion pictures also have the ability to instill more emotions within us such as suspense and foreboding that a picture would be hard pressed to produce. I especially disagree with Sontag’s statement “Television is a stream of underselected images, each of which cancels its predecessor.” It seems to me that she is referring here to the fact that technology is constantly getting better and older films are being replaced by the latest and greatest. I would argue that photography is undergoing much the same process with digital altering of images and new photo cropping technology. So my overall argument with Sontag’s passage is that moving images are actually the more memorable of the two especially in the fast paced society of America today.
I used Countering according to Joe Harris and started by arguing how moving images actually leave a strong lasting impression which contradicts what Sontag is saying. Then I go on to analyze her little summary of moving images and state where I think it is flawed and how, and I topped it off by dissenting with her statement of what a photograph is compared to a moving picture.

In the article “In Plato’s Cave” Susan Sontag expresses her ideas on the art of photography and how it is affecting our everyday lives. Photography started out as an amazing thing that can capture a memory worth remembering. She explains that now it is used for many other things, in some ways it’s good because people can express themselves, however it can also ruin people’s lives because pictures remember things that don’t want to be remembered. The world is made up of pictures, our lives are totally affected by pictures, our lives run off of movies and face book, for at least the newer generations of this time. We can’t help it that our lives are like this, its part of the technology that is presented to us in our ever day lives. When we read news papers, or magazines, watch TV, go on the internet, and even walk down the street. We are always affected by what they have to offer, we are all about what we see now, its never behind the picture. Face book runs a majority of teens lives and we cant help that the pictures on peoples profiles are affecting how half of their high school will think of them. Teens can alter pictures of them selves easily with our new technology, only because of what we have to look at on magazines and movies. We cant help but feel bad about our selves even when most of us know that those pictures of movie stars and models are altered, because that is what we are supposed to look like. I know that deep down every one might be a little affected personally by what most of those pictures have to offer us. I can say that I am very insecure about my self because I know that I don’t look like that even though I know that that is not what I need to look like to be happy it will always be at the back of my mind. These are just ideas off of the top on my head, and I can’t help but not like pictures right now, when I am taking pictures I love them. I really enjoy taking pictures of sunsets and mountains and horses, just nature in general. However I feel like I have nothing to do with them but post them on a facebook page of mine. I could print them and frame them, but our world is so filled with pictures that my pictures, I feel are just ordinary to every other picture, and they wouldn’t mean anything different if some one was to see them.
After writing the first paragraph of this response I realized that I don’t really like photography any more, I came into this response thinking that I was going to write about how good pictures are for our world and what beauty they can bring to our world, which it can. However now I find that I really don’t like that photography is so ordinary now, if I want to see real beauty I think that because of how many pictures there is in the world I really need to see it with my own eyes. I want to see beauty for myself; I see it all the time. I just want to see more of it. I’m trying to stay on prompt right now, but its hard to because I’m angry that my mind is changed about pictures. I though it was a beauty, another form of art, but now its normal to have and doesn’t really help anyone. I am totally agreeing with what Susan Sontag has to say about what photography offers. That it is great because of its originality that it can bring to the table but it has made everything in this world seem a little less amazing.

Selfe's Main Claim

In her essay, Selfe claims that America is not the free land everyone believes it to be. In fact, it is actually still segregated in some cases, and still has the old stereotypical gender roles that it used to. “This Landscape, Americans like to believe, is open to everybody - male and female regardless of color, class, or connection. It is in some fact at some level, a romantic re-creation of the American story…”(301-302). Selfe backs this claim by stating later in the essay that Americans history is full of minority groups that are less fortunate. Selfe shows us examples of multiple advertisements and shows the stereotypical roles that were once played in our nations history that we claim to have overcome and gotten passed, yet still show up everyday in the media. There are still occurances of racism, gender discrimination, and other segregations within our great free nation. “Our cultural experience, indeed, tells us something very different - that America is the land of the free for some”(304). After this, Self continues to talk about the great amount of the segregation and racism that America has had throughout history. Self concludes by saying that “opportunity is a commodity generally limited to privileged groups within this country”(304).

Summary of Cynthia Selfe's "Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution"

Isaac Shantz-Kreutzkamp

English 100

23/02/2010

Summary

Using the example of a still frame of a woman elegantly dressed in extensive jewelery and a black dress staring at a computer monitor; a robot applying lipstick to it's metallic features and staring into a mirror; Cynthia attempts to portray how the advertisements are attempting to show us how great and forward-thinking their products are, but require tapping into a tradition of stereotypes and gender inequality. (309-315)

The picture of a smiling woman with the caption "Irma Speaks Fluent Internet" seems to provoke a progressive outlook, but it pigeonholes women into the role of secretaries, as a secretary in the 1950s might have spoken french, they now are thought to be required to speak "Internet". (311, 308)

Selfe's main claims Ben

In the article, "Lest We Think The Revolution is a Revolution," Cynthia Selfe believes that, "One of the most popular narratives Americans tell ourselves about computers is that technology will help us create a global village in which peoples of the world are connected-communicating with one another and cooperating for the commonweal" (294). Her reasoning behind this is the fact that computers and the Internet would connect everybody together in a giant network where no one could be left out. There wouldn't be any geographic boarders or racial boundaries, everybody would be able to cohabitate peacefully and help each other out in times of need.

Selfe also states that, "This story, as you can imagine, is appealing at a romantic level to many Americans. It is also, incidentally, quite terrifying" (294). She believes that this global village would be appealing at first to the common man, but after analyzing the situation it could quite easily lead to bad scenarios. This village would basically issue a common identity to all who are a member, so in turn it would be asking people to surrender their true identity. To other less privileged citizens within this village, they would highly benefit, but the average American would be forced to surrender so much that they hold dear.

Selfe's Main Claims

"The Un-Gendered Utopia and the same old gendered stuff" was my group's section. In Selfe's essay, one of the main claims is, "computers are complexly socially determined artifacts that interact with exsisting social formations and tendencies-including sexism, classism, and racism-to contribute to the shpaing of a gendered society" (306). The evidence Selfe provides for this main claim is the advertisement on page 314 about the nokia monitors. It shows an elegantly dressed woman staring into the computer screen as if its another set of eyes. It's projecting the image that since she uses these monitors, that other people (mainly women) should do so as well. They want it to project a sense of beauty, by saying that if you buy this monitor, you can be like her. In this advertisement, they are targeting women.
Another claim Selfe makes is, "men use technology to accomplish things; women benefit from technology to enhance the ease of their lives to benefit their families," (308). Her evidence is displayed on page 309 (figure 10) when it shows the family all gathered around the computer screen with the keyboard in the father's hands. This shows that the man is "in control" of the computer and productively entertaining his family while the wife and children are enjoying it. Both of these advertisments display strong examples of the gender roles of different sexes. Selfe wonders if, as old fashioned as they may be, are they still present among us today?

Selfe claims and evidence

In Cynthia Selfes essay titled “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution Images of Technology and the Nature of Change” she writes about three narratives or myths associated with technology and its effect on the societal change of the world. The first narrative she writes of is the “Global Village” and the “Electronic Colony” (294). The “Global village” is the idea that technology can connect the world together, thus making everyone equal. Selfe implies in her essay that the “Global village” sounds good to Americans in that it should “erase meaningless geopolitical boundaries [and] eliminate racial and ethnic differences” (294). This sounds good in theory to Americans but she states that this can be “terrifying” implying that Americans would in this scenario, become equal to everyone within this global village. As Americans are part of one the most technologically advanced countries, the thought of being equal to those not as well off as us, causes a breakdown in the global village narrative. Selfe cites in her essay evidence of this “privileged status of Americans” using Negroponte who says that “twenty percent of the world uses eighty percent of the worlds resources”.

From there Selfe goes on to say that due to these social factors that we deal with in our culture, we as Americans are unable to “cope with the changes that the global village story necessitates… unable to relate to the outside world outside our cultural experiences.” (294) Selfe uses advertisements as evidence to support this claim of Americans not fitting in with this global village narrative. This claim is further expanded on by Selfe implying that we don’t venture away from our own “socially familiar contexts” (295). We have a long history of being the dominant power in the world; we see the world and its less fortunate inhabitants as people that need our help, people that we can impart our knowledge, technology and beliefs upon. She uses evidence of this by citing different programs that help the world advance like Lend-lease, Peace Corps, and the space program. This develops her idea that the idea of the global village is actually an “Electronic Colony” (295) This meaning that only affluent countries are actually able to benefit from this connectedness of the world, as she states “Americans are the smart ones who use technological expertise to connect the worlds people.”

She uses evidence of the Global village narrative in an advertisement for Virgin Sound and Records. In this ad it says that “For the world to have a future, we must work together as one tribe”. The same ad though, also supports her “Electronic Colony” or revised “Global Village” narrative. Where the in the ad was shown a man of a unknown tribe with the idea of everyone working together for a common goal the ad also shows in the same breath a man who is “presented as a wandering savage”(296) who is dressed in native garb and is seen as exotic. We feel that he is connected to us as a member of the “one tribe” but is also a world away from us. He is someone who to us is also a foreigner.

Colin Apt
English100m
2-22-10
Self’s Claims

This Landscape, Americans like to believe, is open to everybody-male and female regardless of color , class or connection. It is in some fact at some level, a romantic re-creation of the American story…”(301-302). Self proves this claim by stating later in the essay that Americans history is full or minority groups that are less fortunate. Self looks into multiple advertisements and shows who the minority groups are in this land of opportunity for some.

“Our cultural experience, indeed, tells us something very different-that America is land of free for some”(304). Self goes on to talk about all of the segregation and racism that America has had through out history. Self concludes this to say that “opportunity is a commodity generally limited privilege groups within this country”(304).

“Because our culture subscribes to several powerful narratives that link technological progress closely with social progress, it is easy for us-for Americans, in particular-to believe that technological change leads to productive social change” (293). She proves this through the fact that the advertisements that she has in her essay are showing a better world through the use of the technology that they are selling. Then the fact that these ads work and people buy this new technology so they can be like the people in the advertisements.

“This optimism about technology often masks in a peculiar way, however, a contrasting set of extremely potent fears” (293). To prove this point she uses her narratives about what we think technology is going to save the world and then shows how the advertisements for these technologies prove these claims wrong. For example where she tries to show that technology has not ended sexism, racism or hunger.

Selfe's main claims-Narrative #2

(301) "A second favorite cultural story that we tell ourselves in connection with computers and change focuses on equity, opportunity, and access-all characteristics ascribed to the electronic landscape we have constructed on the internet and to the computer use, in general". The author backs up her claim by explaining that ALL Americans like to think they have an opportunity, founded on the values of hard work and fair play, to succeed. They place value on innovation, individualism and competition, and still have the neighborly concern for others, the hallmark of democracy.

(304) "Unfortunately, Americans have no collective imaginary context for, or historical experience of,a real global village, nor do they have any real experience with an undifferentiated land of opportunity". Cynthia expresses how it is only the land of opportunity for some, not all. There seems to be a line that separates different races, different countries, and the poor people from the the privileged groups of people within America.

She believes that if everyone had an equal opportunity to the access of technology and the opportunities it provides, it isn't evident in the images she has chosen to portray in her article.

Jeremy, Shae, Hope, Claire, Nate
Plato’s Cave
English 100
Feb 22, 2010

· Photographs are experiences
· Images of images
· Furnished evidence
· A photograph- any photograph- seems to have a more innocent, and therefore more accurate, relations to visible reality than do other mimetic objects
· Show something out there
· Treated as a narrowly selective transparency
· Authority, interest, seductiveness, the work that photographers do is no generic exception to the usually shady commerce between are and truth
· Photographers are most concerned with miring reality; they are still haunted by tacit imperatives of tastes and conscience.
· Capture reality, not just interpret it
· Are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are.
· Is relatively undiscriminating, promiscuous or self effacing
· Ascetic consumerism to which everyone is now addicted
· Photographs can not create a moral position but they can enforce one
· Photograph happens after an event
· The person who intervene cannot record the person who is recording cannot intervene
· Like sexual voyeurism, it is a way of at least tacitly, often explicitly, encouraging whereis going to keep on happening.
· Tool of power
· Ghostly traces- stand in for extended family
· Reminder of death
· Corrupt
· Provide a sense of immortality
· Toy of the clever
· Art
· More memorable than film
· Photos replace experience
· Furnish evidence

Interesting: We found that guns and cameras both share a level of responsibility and need to be handled carefully because like a gun, a camera can ruin someone’s life, if for example you take a picture that shows a person discriminating someone else and they go to court.

Plato's Cave Discussion Q's: Jill B, Jennifer C, John C, Ian C

Q) Sontag says that “photographing is essentially an act of non-intervention” but later in the essay, she argues that cameras are like guns. What do you think she is doing with this apparent contradiction? What is she trying to get her readers to understand by including both?

A) She’s explaining the ignorance that people have when they don’t fully understand the meaning behind the photograph. How the intentions of the photographer gives a positive or negative meaning. She later explains to us that cameras are similar to guns, in the lethality of them. Not in the sense of mortal wounding, but moral and knowledgeable corruption. How the object of photography provides a feeling of danger for those in power, how the “clever” can use these tools to overthrow others. By providing examples of both of these, she shows us an example of how the purpose of a photograph determines whether or not the picture is harmless or lethal.

Q) After our previous exercise, do you ultimately view photography as a positive or negative practice? Or is it more complicated than that? How would you characterize the practice and the art?

A) It is more complicated than that because of the accessibility of it, people are able to see what they want to see, how America is such a visual culture. How we need photographs to understand how we view things. And because of the accessibility of it, it provides a negative view on it because it provides images that can desensitize us, how the images shown will dull us to photographs that would otherwise impact our view on things.

most important idea.

kyle b.
gurjot r.
maria g.
corey n.

Photography is basically the same as filming because now we can capture so many images in short intervals of time that each can act as each other. Sontag might say that photography has developed over the ages amplify the ability of photographs into these new technologies. And she might question photographs now because of ways to alter photos such as photoshop.

Impact of technology

There needs to be a line drawn with what people want to see and what we think is too much. There are many things shared to the public that a lot of people do not want to hear, but have to. Then there are things shared that people get offended by suck as seeing death on the news.

Photographs

1. To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed.

2. What is written about a person or an event is frankly an interpretation, as are handmade visual statements, like paintings and drawings.

3. Photographs, which fiddle with the scale of the world themselves, get reduced blown up cropped retouched doctored tricked out.

4. Photographs which package the world seem to invite package.

5. Photographs furnish evidence.

6. A photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened.

7. A photograph can be treated as a narrowly selective transparency.

8. Photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as they as paintings and drawings are.

9. Images which idealize are no less aggressive then the work which makes a virtue of plainness.

10. Photography has become almost as widely practiced an amusement as sex and dancing.

11. It is mainly a social rite a defense against anxiety and a tool of power.

12. Through photographs each family constructs a portrait chronicle of itself a possible kit of images that bears witness to its connectedness.

13. A way of certifying experience taking photographs is also a way of refusing it.

14. Picture taking is an event in it itself and one with ever more peremptory rights.

15. While real people are out there killing themselves or other real people the photographer stays behind his or her camera creating a tiny element of another world: the image-world that bids to outlast us all.

16. Although the camera is an observation station the act of photographing is more than passive observing.

17. All activities that unlike the sexual push and shove can be conducted from a distance and with some detachment.

18. Like a car a camera is sold as a predatory weapon one that’s as automated as possible ready to spring.

19. Like guns and cars cameras are fantasy-machines whose use is addictive.



Digital cameras and camera phones have had a negative impact on photography because they are always readily available and the pictures taken are insignificant and take away from the importance of film. We think Sontag would concur with this and she would have a feeling of disapproval of these technological advances of photography.

reading response 6

Manipulate the coding
In the very beginning of Cynthia Selfe’s “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution.” She explains what she thinks the internet is doing to the world as a whole and what conceptions it brings about from people all over the world. She believes that there are the 2 different narratives, one which every one wants to believe that is “the global village” and one that represent truth and reality which she named “the electronic colony”. In the idea of “the global village” everybody that uses the internet has the same rights, everyone is equal and everyone respects each others cultures she relates this with the one world one tribe yanomami cd advertisement. We all wish that this were the case and that this magical Christmas land truly existed, but in reality not everyone is equal and everybody doesn’t have the same rights. Selfe explains this narrative with “the electronic colony” where she states that those with greed and power do not want to have to give up any of this greed and power she relates this narrative with the American colonial story ad. She shows this idea by stating that Americans take up 20 percent of the population and we as a country use up 80 percent of the worlds resources which isn’t fair to the rest of the world. When it comes to the internet Americans will want to maintain this same status and try to be pioneers of this new land. Why I think that everyone can not be equals online is because different people have different abilities, so people can display their views more persuasively or manipulate the coding of computers to get other users to follow them thus giving them a way to get things that others couldn’t. Also the internet is more like an extension of peoples personal views so all cultures will not be evenly tolerated and accepted because I have seen forums and blogs where this disrespect has been shown.

I would say that I uncovered values in this passage because in Cynthia Selfe’s essay she covered both the sides of an argument for the two narratives so that is definitely out of the picture for me. So I think that I an somewhere in the mix of dissenting because I identify with one of her two sides and uncovering values because I expanded on this common idea in which we share.

metaphors and junk

Kyle B.
Gurjot R.
Maria G
Corey N.
· Picture taking is an event in itself.
· Photography is mainly a social right, a defense against anxiety and a tool of power.
· Photography has become one of the principle devices for experiencing something, for giving an appearance of participation showing that you were there.
· A photograph is both a pseudo-presence and a token of absence.
· Reminder of suffering.
· The ability to reinforce or build morals.
· To collect photograph is to collect the world.
· Photograph became part of the general furniture of the environment,
· Photography implies we know about the world if we accept it as the camera records it.
· Like guns and cars cameras are fantasy machines whos use is addicting.
· Today everything exist to end in a photograph.
· Photograph is an elegiac art, a twilight art.
· Photographs more memorable than moving images because they are a neat slice of time rather than a flow.
· Photographs are as much interpretation of the world as painting or drawings are.

Photograph metaphors

Photographs give us the sense we can hold the whole world in our hands.
To collect photographs is to collect the world.
The camera is the ideal arm of consciousness.
Photographs are miniatures of reality that anyone can make or acquire.
Photographs seem to have a more innocent, and therefore more accurate, relation to visible reality than do other mimetic objects.
Political Conceiousness.
Photographs are corrupt.
Photographs are a privileged moment.

Photographs are a time line.
Like a car a camera is sold as a predatory weapon, one that is automated as ready as possible ready to spring.
Like guns and cars, cameras are fantasy machines thats use is addictive.
A photograph is both a pseudo precense and a token absence. Like a wood in fire in a room.
The act of photgraphing is more then passive observing.
Photgraphs are more memorable then moving images because they are a unique slice of time.
In situations where the photgrapher has the choice between a photograph and a life, to choose the photograph. The person who intevenes can not record, the person who records can not intervene.

In Cynthia Selfe’s Essay “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution,” she describes how technology has had the stereotype to be for men. She also describes a world where technology would be for anyone whether it is for men or women. She says this change is possible, but very difficult. She states, “These roles exist, and are reproduced, within a set of over determined social formations that makes radical change hard to imagine and even harder to enact-especially when technology is involved.” This quote means that the role of women computer geeks is out there, but the stereotype is that a computer geek is a man. Early technological advances have been made by guys. The car was invented by a guy. The internet was invented by a group of guys. This stems from how society is run. Western society is usually run in a patriarchal manner. Men have oppressed women for thousands of years. So while women are staying at home, changing diapers, the men are at work inventing something new. This may be the case. I think that because a woman’s brain is physically wired differently than a man’s, men have an easier time with technology and machines. Women may have an easier time with reading and literature due to the difference in brain wiring. This may have driven the early civilizations to be patriarchal. I think that because of these reasons, the role of women technology geeks will either stay where it is at with regard to how many there are, or decline. Most women that I talk to are just not interested in science and technology. Right now, I am helping fix a girls computer. All she said to me was, “I don’t care what you do, just make it work.” I have heard this said by many other women many times before. My mother says it to me all the time with the home computer. She either wakes me up or my father. Another friend has computer problems, but doesn’t want me to tinker with her computer in the fear that I’ll severely damage it. I have never once seen a woman even try to explore a hard drive. With every woman that I have worked with on a computer, I had to tell them what I was messing with. I had to tell them what it did and what not because they had never heard of it before. This I believe contributes to the oppression of women. There are so few out there that can immerse themselves in technology and not get confused.

response 6

Claire Janigo

Anna Wolf

English 100a

20 February 2010

Writing Response 6: Cynthia Selfe’s

“ Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution.”

The essay written by Cynthia Selfe, “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution,” is a powerful piece in the successful way in which it enlightens readers on influences, good and bad, that technology has incorporated out of societal norms. Selfe points out that despite the many advantages with the growing media and technology industry, there are flaws in the practice that are hidden beneath layers of attractive ideals. Technology has learned to incorporate societal norms within their messages, including gender rules, racial diversity, and common wealth in order to sell an ideal that will most likely be accepted and encouraged by viewers.

One of Selfe’s main focuses in her essay was put on gender roles. People like to believe that men and woman have equal access to the same opportunities and interests as to not discriminate. Yet despite these ideals, the marketing for technology still discriminates between the use of devices between men and woman. Gearing more of the homemaker, mother and wife properties towards the woman, and marketing men rising up in the working world. Selfe observes, “… woman use technology within a clearly constrained set of appropriate settings: to enrich the lives of their family and to meet their responsibilities at home- as wife, as mother, as seductress, as lover… as secretaries, executive assistants, and loyal employees… Men in contrast, use computers at home to expand their personal horizons beyond current limits- for excitement, for challenge, to enhance their own private lives as explorers, pioneers, and builders… to support their historical constructed roles as bosses, leaders decision makers”(Selfe, p. 207). Although technology is selling the ideal circumstance that men and woman are equally capable of using it, the activities marketed are separate for men and woman and continue to follow the American culture generated roles for men and woman.

The idea that gender is not an issue with technology is an ideal that Americans like to believe because of societal instinct to be accepting and open towards innovative ideas. The marketing is clever in the way that it supports equality progress while still supporting the internalized gender roles in American society of woman as homemaker and man as hunter-gatherer. Technology sells the idea that it is a leader in the movement towards equal gender rights, but at the same time only reinforces the already internalized roles. Therefore, because the marketing reflects society the roles of genders will have to be internally changed in society before technology will successfully market and sell the idea to viewers. Despite the fact the Americans love to believe in change for the better, internalizing and practicing change comes at a much higher cost to their current comfort. This laziness seen in society is what the technology marketing feels off of, telling people they can be part of a change by keeping up with the latest gadgets

Shae Hughes Reading Response #6
Computer games of now day’s era seemed to be thrust into the direction of the male population. Though the male gender may be diamond in the eye of computer marketers, it is not only men that are allowed to use them in an off work bases. Cynthia L. Selfe writes and essay about the technological era of what she calls the “Global Village.” The view that by using technology we can get rid of diversity, racism and separation. More basically be accepted all as one. Within this essay she begins to explain about how the, “Un-Gendered Utopia”, a belief that Americans want to see that women are no lower than men in the technological age, but a utopia none the less. “….women use technology within a clearly constrained set of appropriate settings: to enrich the lives of their family and to meet their responsibilities at home-as wife, as mother, as seductress, as lover…,” she pushes her tone towards the utopia debate. “Men, in contrast, use computers at home to expand their personal horizons beyond current limits-for excitement, for challenge, to enhance their own private lives as explorers pioneers and builders.” Selfe is depicting the revised narrative of how common Americans actually view the genders and their use of technology. As a mother of children and a spouse to a working husband, women are use technology for their at home use only, such as finding recipes and tips on how to make the perfect meal. The father or more viewed as the money maker, uses this technology for personal gain and enjoyment, maybe playing a video game after a relaxing day of work.
I think that Selfe is mistaken because she overlooks how women are now a standing role in society, maybe not as much as men but have the same overbearing presence that they are there. Maybe it is due to the feminist ideals and motivations that causes her to lean toward this myth that women are still supremely unequal being to that of men. A working man once had the opposition standing at him to be only that of other white males. Where he could go in not having to worry about the mother of the neighbors kids butting in to take the job that he needs. Now in this day and era, men must go in to the battle of employment armed with weapons that are able to compete with every race but importantly gender. As male competing for jobs I look no less on the females ability to be chosen above me. As Selfe throws around the above belief that women are viewed as not using technology for the meaning of work is no more viable evidence than the word of a drunken bum. A very vast majority of jobs require the use of computers, whether it be cash registers or making excel documents to show the CEO of the head corporation. With the use of such technology and women being such an equal employee as men, this claim cannot be considered true. Even in the career areas where one would think that only men should be, such as a security guard where I work, why then is my boss female.

Reading Response #6

Nathan Barbo
Eng 100 A
2/19/10
Reading Response #6
Writer Cynthia Selfe argues in the book she co-wrote, “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution” that American advertisements did not fairly show all of America. She talks about how the advertisements use only white American men. Selfe says, “if citizens of all kinds are to have access to technology and the opportunities it provides, we do not see such a narrative imagined in the land of difference; if technology is to improve the lives of all Americans regardless of race and class and other differences, are collective ability to envision such a world is not evident in these images.” Basically Selfe is saying that advertisements to not use enough of the racial and class differences to sell their products. I do not disagree that this may have been true back in the time of her grandmother or even when she wrote this book, however I do not believe it is true now. The commercials we see now have people of all different ethnicities and both males and females. One example of this would be the use of athletes to endorse products. Many of these athletes are black men and women. Now this certainly does not address the class issue, but it does show role models of different races being used to sell products. I would even argue that most commercials now have an African American in them. I do not feel that our generation is being raised with such narrow images; we see a much broader scope of race and class being used. I believe now companies are looking more at who they are trying to sell to then just using the traditional white American. If the commercial is directed to women they are using women to sell the product. If it is directed to single parents they use a single mother. The race or class of a person in an advertisement or in a office is not as big a deal to my generation. My generation sees a person selling a product or doing a job, not a certain race.
The countering strategy used in this article is arguing the other side. I tried to show the progress that ads have made in the use of people of different race in class that her article did not point out.