Wednesday, February 24, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)