The New Macbook Pro

For my entire time at Andover, my laptop computer has been a Compaq Presario, which needless to say is not the best piece of technology out there. These three and a half years have been enough time to dream of getting a better computer, and like millions of other people, that computer is the Macbook pro. Apple has gradually attracted me more and more to their products, so I planned on getting a Macbook pro after graduation.

But something very enticing happened recently: rumors about a new Macbook pro began to circulate throughout the internet, and about a week ago to a substantial degree. Large amounts of speculation  about possible new upgrades ran rampant and rumors about the release date exacerbated the hype. And finally today, on Steve Jobs' birthday, the new Macbook was released. I'm not sure if the leaked plans for the new Macbook pro were intended by Apple or not, but they certainly helped to advertise Apple's new product and propel their brand identity.

The people who will be most eager to buy the new Macbook are huge Apple fans, ones who scan websites, forums and blogs dedicated to Apple. This is where a lot of the speculation regarding the updated laptop release took place, so right there is an initial demographic ready and willing to either purchase or tell people about the new computer. Once this group of people is informed, it's only a matter of time before the news becomes widespread.

Apple's brand has always been one identified as being "current," "superior" and "exciting." The hype over the new release adds onto what Apple has already been able to make people think about it. In the words of Kevin Roberts, Apple is a "lovemark" brand, "infused with mystery, sensuality and intimacy, and [one] that you recognize immediately as having some kind of iconic place in your heart."

The word "intimacy" related to Apple as a brand becomes very apparent in this recent release. Steve Jobs is the founder of Apple, so people who love the brand also love him. What better way to exploit this relationship than to release the new Macbook on his birthday. This ploy by Apple on top of Jobs' recent health issues certainly creates an emotional connection with Apple, making the brand more effective.

Who is worthy?

Four Americans Held on Hijacked Yacht Are Killed is the title of a recent front-page headline in the New York Times. The article starts off with the story of one of the couple's dream to sail around the world, which ended in tragedy at the hands of Somalian pirates. Toward the beginning of the narrative, almost nonchalantly, the author mentions the  "epidemic" of modern-day piracy that began a few years ago. "Epidemic" is a pretty strong word, especially to describe something that is barely touched upon toward the end of the article.

Worthy and unworthy victims immediately popped into my head when I read this. Rather than use the murders as an opening to an article addressing the bigger problem in the seas off the coast of Somalia, the article is dedicated to this one instance and the people involved. I am not saying that the story isn't newsworthy, but surely an "epidemic" is worthy of more coverage.

This story is front-page worthy because the victims are Americans, and not because piracy is an issue. Had the victims been a Somalian cargo ship crew or the like, I don't think the story would be receiving the coverage that it is. Unsurprisingly, American news sources preference stories with American interests and people involved.

"Worthy" and "American" are somewhat synonymous in national news outlets, epitomizing American narcissistic tendencies. All too often Americans are impartial to international news, thinking, "Well, if it's not happening to me, then it doesn't matter." But the stories happening around the world are on a scale Americans are often unable to comprehend in the comfort of modern American society. There are in fact Somalian pirates wreaking havoc on ships, people all around the world dying of starvation and countless other things that should be worthy of Americans' attentions, but simply don't make the cut.

Well how does that make you feel?

Affective marketing is a marketing technique used to appeal to the emotions of potential consumers. As Clotaire Rapaille suggests, people make mental connections with certain words and things, and emotions are the keys to making such connections. These connections, or codes as Rapaille says, are made mostly during one's childhood, so the nature of one's upbringing is vital to how affective marketing effects targeted consumers. Based on this logic, brands and corporations will have more effective advertising if they follow the codes and spark mental, emotional connections from targeted consumers' early lives.

A prime example of this is the NFL's Superbowl "Best Fans" commercial, where a host of TV show characters from the 70's up through today are featured wearing professional football team memorabilia. Most of the shows depicted hit home with middle-aged people who were children or younger when these shows were popular. The Brady Bunch, Happy Days and  The Dukes of Hazzard were beloved TV shows for children of the 70's, who are now at parenting age. If parents associate fond, emotional connections with the NFL, then they will be more inclined to watch it and so will their children.

Another example that we have discussed in class is the Volkswagen "The Force" commercial. Although the child is the main focus of the ad, it is the middle-aged parents who grew up watching Star Wars and playing with Jedi action figures that can relate to the kid trying to use the force. This makes sense considering that people who grew up in the 70's are now at the age where buying cars and family are important parts of their lives. 

I'd hate to tie religion into my media studies again, but here it goes.

Based on my own experience and my viewing of the documentary Jesus Camp, I have observed that religion is pushed onto children as early as possible to develop deep mental connections to ensure positive connotations with religion later in life, so that they continue to practice faith. As Rapaille might say, a series of codes are formed to associate "goodness" and "acceptance" with religious culture. If these "mental highways" are formed early enough and sturdily enough, it is virtually impossible to break them. It's as if a brand conditioned children at early ages to appreciate, love and even rely on it. And later in life, when the brand advertises its products or services, deep-rooted emotional connections will have already been associated with the brand and consumers will be unconsciously compelled to consume whatever the brand is marketing.  

Loyalty Beyond Reason: Part 2

I cannot get this idea of "loyalty beyond reason" out of my head. But as I have found out, this notion plays a larger part in the world around me than I realized.

As I was listening to an audio book by Sam Harris entitled "The End of Faith," Harris points out that, given today's widely accepted scientific findings, certain religious beliefs are illogical, yet billions of people still hold them to be fact. The creation of the Earth 6000 years ago, supernatural abilities and the origins of the human race with Adam and Eve go against the most basic concepts of science. Despite archeological evidence and verified science, people still remain loyal to their belief systems. So now I ask myself, how do religions brand themselves, and do corporate brands use similar methods?

Religions brand themselves as being a means of salvation for whoever chooses to participate as well as a source for answers, counsel and social acceptance. The biggest "advantages" one has when part of a belief system is feelings of acceptance and reassurance. The most popular religions have answers to life's most troublesome questions, e.g. what happens when we die? and what is my purpose on Earth? Most religions have guidelines to living a fulfilling and good life, which gives followers the feeling of doing the right thing: I would go so far as to say that religions practice affective marketing at its finest. Following a religion also entails being a part of a group of people with a common respect for and bond with one another, and this accepting community can be an attractive quality of practicing faith.

Even though Nike has not yet proclaimed eternal salvation for its loyal consumers, corporate brands present themselves in ways similar to religions and strive to play similar, obviously less significant roles in people's lives.

Like religion fills a spiritual or social void in one's life, branded products are marketed to seem as if they serve a purpose in one's life that is not already being served: the classic commercial structure of problem-product-solution comes to mind. This is the assurance aspect, where brands appeal to areas in consumers' lives that are presented as lacking something.

With bigger brand names such as Apple, Under Armor, Lacoste, etc., acceptance and repute in a community are considerable motivations for consumers to purchase popular, branded products. When two people follow the same religion, they automatically feel some connection with one another, and this type of dynamic fosters social interactions. Similarly, when two people sitting in a subway car are using their iPhones, they both know that the other made the same decision to purchase an iPhone and therefore share something in common. Now when millions of people decide to have iPhones, others will want to be a part of the group of people who have iPhones so that they can feel accepted as part of the larger whole, too.

I have a theory about religion and corporate branding, which is that in order to gain faithful consumers, those seeking consumers do everything they can to convince consumers that their lives are simply incomplete and that consuming their faith/product will somehow fill the missing pieces in consumers' lives. Religions do this by proposing that their codes of ethics ensure moral stability, and that living in the name of God is the way to a fulfilling life and afterlife. Corporate brands do this by saying their products do things that no other product can do and that their products will make people happier. But are atheists devoid of ethical, moral values, and can a phone with a slightly bigger screen and blue-tooth capability really make me happier?

Wow, James Franco Sure Is Leisurely

http://goremaster.com/blog/2010/04/19/james-franco-birthday-april-19/

James Franco is a very successful guy. He has made millions in blockbuster films such as Spider-man and Milk, and has become a household name. Now Franco is an Oscar-nominated actor, who coincidentally will be co-hosting the Oscars. But there is a side to this celebrity people do not normally see. After becoming a successful actor, Franco since 2006 has attended a host of colleges such as UCLA, Columbia University, the NYU's Tisch School of the Arts, Brooklyn University and most recently Yale University where he is working toward a Ph.D. in English. Franco is also an amateur painter and wrote a series of short stories which he had published. All of these things are a product of Franco's accumulated wealth, and as Veblen would say, are evidence of Franco's life of conspicuous leisure.

According to Veblen, people thrive to be in a position that permits "higher thinking," which is an unproductive consumption of time: when Franco was an actor, his job did not involve much intellectual or academic thinking. There was some void Franco wanted to fill in his life, so he decided to take on a more predatory, and leisurely, work.

People assume that wealthy celebrities have the pecuniary strength to be leisurely and consume large amounts of time and goods, so celebrities need to be particularly conspicuous in order to stand out from the clutter of famous people trying to brand their names. When one sees the insane amount of academic accomplishments Franco has accumulated in the past four years, it's hard not to think of the time and money needed to do all of those things. It makes one think, "if anyone is a part of the leisure class, it's James Franco." These types of thoughts are ideal for those who practice conspicuous consumption and leisure, because the ultimate goal is higher repute in society.

Veblen also touches upon the idea that ownership is a practice of the high leisure class and a good method of being conspicuously wealthy. Although not quite ownership, Franco's multiple academic degrees are his to own and do with what he wishes, and Veblen's three incentives for ownership translate into incentives for obtaining so many degrees. Being so scholarly 1) allows Franco to be dominant (at least intellectually) 2) is evidence of his prowess and 3) is useful if his acting career cannot sustain him in the long-run.

Wealthy people can show their pecuniary strength through conspicuous leisure and consumption, which all entail that their actions are unproductive to society. Franco's scholarly exploits serve no greater purpose other than his own interests. Other celebrities and wealthy people have found a way to show their fiscal prowess and power through acts that are productive to society: charity. Although not as productive as being a blue-collar worker, as Veblen says, acts of charity by the wealthy contribute to the greater good and produce a positive effect on a context larger than just that of the wealthy.


Information for this post regarding James Franco was obtained from Wikipedia.org. 

Loyalty Beyond Reason

As I was watching the Frontline special The Persuaders, I heard and was immediately enthralled by the comment "loyalty beyond reason," which was used to describe consumers' attraction to certain successful brands. At the same time I was still mentally distraught by the loss of my all-time favorite sports team, the Pittsburgh Steelers. These two thoughts merged together to form a single question: Why do I feel such a strong connection between me and the Pittsburgh Steelers?
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/sports/football/19afc.html?_r=1

The Steelers are a brand and, as much as it pains me to say, have the intent of making enormous profits through advertising, merchandise and marketing techniques targeted at consumers, a.k.a. fans, such as myself. I've bought Steelers hats, jerseys, blankets, towels and even a snuggie, all because I love this football team, and for no other reason. 

Growing up in Pittsburgh, the Steelers are a huge part of everyday life. Black and yellow paraphernalia make up a large portion of Pittsburghers' wardrobes, so it's virtually impossible to escape the positive energy associated with the Steelers. And when football season rolls around, parties and events are thrown all around town, and everyone is somewhere watching or listening to the games. Every school in the city has Steelers spirit days, where every student and faculty member dresses up in preparation for the weekend's football game. 

The Steelers as a brand have done what all brands try to do, which is associate their brand with positive experiences and make people feel like they belong to something bigger than themselves. I cannot say what it would be like for a Pittsburgher to not be a Steelers fan, because I simply have never seen it happen. Everyone feels a necessity to be a part of Steeler Nation, and it is non-stop excitement (good or bad) when one is a part of it. 

So I have done my best to describe why I and many others are Steelers fans, but our loyalty still has no reasoning behind it. When you think about it, there is nothing logical about spending countless dollars and hours on a team of men that have no idea that I exist, who play a game that has no greater purpose than pure entertainment. But even after acknowledging my illogical love for the Steelers, I still have no problem being a Steelers fan because everyone around me growing up was a Steelers fan, and being a fan is better than not being a fan. 

This brand has incorporated itself so well into my life that even my own logical thought process can do nothing to falter my unreasonable loyalty. What I see as a fellow Steelers fan is actually advertising for the Steelers brand, which attracts upcoming fans and strengthens the loyalties of old ones. A normal Sunday gathering of friends and family around a TV screen, eating black and yellow chips, is a testament to the successful marketing of the Steelers brand. But none of this analysis can make a Steelers fan, or a fan of any team for that matter, question his/her loyalty to sports teams, because these pro-sporting brands have done such a good job of becoming entertainment, acceptance and a part of normal life for millions of people.

Wow, all this talk about the Steelers has me excited for next season. Go Stillers!

Jesus: The Worthiest Victim

Dichotomization is a word I had never heard before until quite recently. My understanding of dichotomization is admittedly quite limited, but I do know that, in the context of media, it describes the separation between worthy and unworthy victims. This knowledge has recently paired with the religious and philosophical questions frequenting my mental dialogue, and I have come to the conclusion that Jesus falls into the category of worthy victims and is the most notable, publicized and worthy victim of all time.

http://www.thecouragetolive.com/2010/11/10/consider-jesus-from-hebrews-121-3.html

I was raised Catholic and forced through Sunday school, where I learned quite a lot about the story of Jesus and other religious teachings. I attended a camp for 10 years founded and run by a church, and my lower year I took "The New Testament Perspective." So you could say that I have had my fair share of experiences with Christianity and more specifically Jesus' legacy. Time and time again I have seen the immense amount of media, such as the Bible, prayer books, films, etc., which all portray Jesus as a martyr for "the sins of the world." For millions upon millions of people, Jesus was a victim so that they would not have to be victims. 

Jesus' worthiness as a victim is shown through the large amounts of Bibles bought and sold every year, and the millions of churches scattered across the world. His name must be one of the most if not the most widely recognized name on the planet, and it is difficult to grow up and not here his story. I personally like to think of  Jesus' life and teachings as the longest covered media event to date. One can still see advertisements on TV or billboards along the highway preaching the name of Jesus, and his biography remains a number one best-seller, almost 2000 years after the (so called) fact.

This is just pure speculation on my part, but I cannot help but think that the Gospel was the product of the media equivalent of the time giving consumers the story they wanted to hear. Most people of the time were poor, and Jesus' teachings gave hope to these once unmotivated people. And if enough people start to believe that God came down as man and performed miraculous miracles, who is going to doubt its legitimacy?  

Writer's note: As of now I do not believe in God and the divine nature of Jesus: the larger and broader my knowledge of the world grows, the less I am able to believe that there are supernatural forces at work in my life. This kind of stuff has been on my mind a lot recently, and I thought I would use this "extra credit" blog as somewhat of an outlet for my many thoughts. All while retaining my identity as a media studies scholar, of course.

I Pledge Allegiance, To The New Dodge Challenger

Wow. I never thought I would ever get the chance to see George Washington driving an American muscle car toward a fleeing British military force. This commercial reminds me of how much I love America, and Dodge. I should go buy one.

OK, my mental dialogue about this ad did not unfold quite like that. But I do like this ad: not because I agree with the superficial, overly macho message, but because it is quite unique.

Most advertisements today use stupid, slapstick comedy, sex appeal or cold hard facts, while this one uses nationalism and downright ridiculousness. The makers of this ad know that Americans pride themselves on being the home of democracy, where the first Americans fought for freedom against a monarch rule: they also know that the image of George Washington behind the wheel of a car with an American flag on it driving out (pun intended) the British will be immediately imprinted into the mind of anyone who sees it.

As a consumer in a consumer-based society, I have seen plenty of advertisements and found that the basis for the vast majority of television commercials is a common ground between the ad and consumer. Just think of the classic commercial question, "Has this ever happened to you?"

This Dodge Challenger ad has a superficial aspect, patriotism, which Americans can relate to. What I find to be particularly clever about this ad is that it possess another relatable quality: virtually everyone has seen absurd, over-the-top commercials. I get the sense that the ridiculousness of this commercial was meant to be blatantly senseless, and was not made assuming that some people would whole-heartedly agree with the message and yell "Go America!" I would go so far as to say that this commercial has some satire-like qualities, bringing to light the absurdity of corporate advertising and its barrage on consumers.  

To be honest I have never thought this extensively about an advertisement, and I can't tell whether or not that means advertisers are successfully persuading me to want what they are selling. Perhaps the use of familiar cultural institutions, such as patriotism or humor, allow the messages of advertisers to affect me in a way that I don't readily acknowledge. This is just my own thought on the matter, but it seems that advertisers are able to use what people relate to on the most fundamental level of day to day life, so that their message, or product, becomes more deeply rooted in the minds of consumers, who then are more likely to remember and consider buying that product. 

The next time I hear the Star Spangled Banner, is the image of George Washington standing proudly next to a flag-bearing Dodge Challenger going to pop into my head? 

My bet is yes, and to that I say, touché Dodge, and touché advertising. 

True or False?

She thought lies were the truth. Am I the same way?
http://www.slate.com/id/2122181/

After hearing the story of Judith Miller today in class, I asked myself a series of questions. To make a long story short, I came to a final question: "How do I know that what I hold to be the truth is actually true?" For Judith Miller, she trusted someone that was feeding her faulty information, which she honestly thought was based in fact. Miller's reality was manipulated, and she was ignorant to the outside forces controlling her like a marionette. If this woman could be so easily deceived, then how can I be sure of what is true and what is false? Am I just some puppet for a higher power to believe what s/he wants me to believe?

One thing I do know is that my knowledge of the world outside my own personal bubble is limited to the information the media provides me. And considering what I have learned about the propaganda model, that information has a very high potential of being either fragmented or altered to benefit the elite. Now every time I read a newspaper or watch the news, a little voice from my inner media studies scholar will ask, "are you sure that you can trust this source?"

I understand that the vast majority of media coverage provides me with accurate information, but the entire media as a source of news can be compared with Judith Miller and lose some credibility. I am sure that Miller wrote articles that were well researched and factual. However those faulty stories of hers, orchestrated by Scooter Libby, discredit her as a viable source for information and make it hard to trust her again. The same goes for the media. If I see several instances where journalists run inaccurate articles and are caught, how can I not go on to think that maybe this type of thing occurs more frequently than what can be seen on the surface? After all, the only way for me to know of faulty journalism is to rely on, you guessed it, the media.

The media and the many forces that manipulate the media are parts of such a tangled web, where the truth and lies can both be found. As an insignificant spectator to the powerful, invaluable component of our culture that is media, I feel as if nothing I do can ensure my consumption of the whole truth and nothing but the truth (so help me God).

State of the Fragmented Union

Despite CNN's supposed "exclusive" coverage of the event, FOX News and C-SPAN were also streaming live footage of the State of the Union on their respective networks, providing insight and opinions before and after the President's speech. C-SPAN's coverage was quite impartial as always, but not FOX and CNN, which together illustrate the idea of "high choice media": people of certain beliefs and political views can watch and read news in so called "echo chambers"  where their beliefs are reinforced and over time intensified. As a media studies student, I put aside my political beliefs and watched a little bit of both the more liberal-leaning CNN and conservative FOX to see how these two sources differed and ultimately contribute to the fragmentation and polarization of American politics.

The preliminary coverage for both networks were relatively the same: CNN and FOX had panel-like discussions between liberals, conservatives and perhaps a few moderate analysts. But after the speech, the thoughts differed considerably.

While watching FOX, I heard people saying that Obama did nothing special and that he dropped the ball at a time when he could have gone out of his comfort zone and really sparked a movement toward a better nation. Charles Krauthammer was particularly negative about Obama's speech, basically saying that he played it safe and did not bring anything new to the table. One would expect harsh criticism  like that coming from the conservative network. On the bottom of the screen was a text box showing Obama's main points in the most simplistic, mundane sentences possible. I guess this is to help those who were unable to follow the speech, but it seems like FOX was making Obama's message boring and uninspiring.

I switched over to CNN to find Wolf Blitzer leading a panel discussion of contributers from mixed political preferences. The first thing I heard was "transformative speech," which was the total opposite of what I had heard on FOX not even a minute earlier. What next caught my attention was Piers Morgan, an entertainment journalist and new host of Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN. Now he may be quite politically educated, but he is a British talk show host helping to represent the conservative side of the post-State-of-the-Union debate. I may just be trying too hard to find faults in the media, but it seems like CNN didn't make the conservative side of the debate as strong as it could have been, or, as strong as the liberal side.

So in the end I found two huge news networks covering the same story in similar fashions, but yielding completely different opinions and thoughts on the matter. Personally, this experience has reinforced the idea that these large media networks purposefully appeal to a certain politically-minded demographic. And why wouldn't they considering pandering to a group of people and telling them what they want to hear ensures a steady revenue? These partisan networks are dragging this nation farther and farther away from political harmony: a utopia where both sides of the political debate are knowledgeable of and understand the views of the opposing side. As sources of biased information and analysis become more powerful, so will the forces that are polarizing politics and fragmenting the nation.


The information obtained for this article pertaining to high choice media can be found here.

Funny AND True?

http://www.tvrage.com/The_Daily_Show

I love humor. It is a constantly adapting tool that, when used correctly, can be incredibly effective. Perhaps the most effective style of humor is satire, described by dictionary.com as, "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc." I could not have said it better myself. 

From John Swift's A Modest Proposal  (less commonly but more humorously referred to as "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public,") to a recent article in The Onion titled "Kim Jong-Un Privately Doubting He's Crazy Enough To Run North Korea," satire has been used to take the truth and throw it into a context so absurd and untrue that it makes the truth more apparent. 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOnion

Like we have discussed in class, these satirical stories from various media such as The Daily Show and The Onion present absurdly false truths that expose truths of their own. But unlike the media presenting false truths, such as the statue toppling in Firdos Square, satirical articles are apparently works of fiction. But if a satire is done effectively, the real intended truth behind it will shine through. 

Take the article entitled Congress Honors 9/11 First Capitalizers  from The Onion for example. Although less subtle than some fake news satires, this article exposes an idea that people might not think twice about without it being brought abruptly to their attention. People exploiting a tragic event is not a funny issue, but playfully honoring these people to show how absolutely ridiculous it is that some capitalists and political figures used the occasion to promote self-interests makes the issue much simpler and understandable. It makes the reader say, "Wow, I never really thought about it that way." 

A satire's ability to make certain problems more apparent and approachable makes me regard this tool, and the tool of humor in general,  as a powerful one that can help show some important truths in our world.  

 

Julian Assange: Unfiltered

An unlovable Australian by the name of Julian Assange did what governments try to prevent on a daily basis: he leaked information that sparked immense controversy and trouble for the U.S. and other nations. American military field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan were leaked in July 2010, and over 250,000 diplomatic cables were presented by the Wikileaks website in December of 2010. These leaks wreaked a great deal of havoc, hurting U.S. diplomatic relations, uncovering questionable actions by political figures, revealing the identities of U.S. informants and secret operatives, etc.

Now where does Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's propaganda model fall into all of this? Cowering at the feet of Assange, apparently.

Assange was able to bypass every one of the five filters that are meant to limit the information released by the media, sticking a big middle finger in the face of the propaganda model.

1) As an activist and head of a non-profit website, he was not held back by the profit-driven mass media.
2) For the same reason, he cared very little or probably not at all about losing advertisers that may disagree with his actions.
3) Because his information came from direct leaks from the government, he did not have to rely on the government and other entities mentioned in the leaks in order to put them up on his website.
4) Perhaps he was only thinking in the short-term or does not care about the repercussions of his actions: either way, flak did not stop him from leaking the information. (After seeing his calm, "I don't care" demeanor from footage taken in the wake of the wikileaks and rape allegations in Sweden, I don't think flak is a big concern of his.)
5) Terrorism, or anticommunism for that matter, did not play much of a role in the wikileaks.

Obviously the leaked information would have never made it to the public mass media had it gone through the filters of the propaganda model. This both frustrated those wanting to keep these things a secret and delighted the mass media, because they were able to cover things that would have been taboo otherwise. So many stories and headlines resulted from information leaked by Assange's website, and the public eye was shown a side of politics and war never before seen.

At the end of all this I have one question lurking in my mind: What would Herman and Chomsky have to say about the internet as a part of their propaganda model?

(Side note: One thing proven by the wikileaks is that governments withhold and manipulate information given to the media not just to propel their political agendas but to protect people who should remain secrets, such as informants and allied military forces. These people, such as Afghan informants, are seen as traitors to their native people when their names are leaked and must either seek U.S. sanction or fall victim to those who feel betrayed.)

You may look at the photograph, but you're not SEEING the photograph

I can look at a photograph, investigate every little detail one by one, and be pretty well-prepared to explain to someone what the photo depicts. But I can never truly understand the context in which it belongs with the photo alone. In the words of Susan Sontag, "the truths that can be rendered in a dissociated moment, however significant or decisive, have a very narrow relation to the needs of understanding." It is one thing to be able to know of the situation depicted in a photo: it is an entirely different thing to be able to understand and empathize with whoever and whatever inhabits the photo. I believe that one's ability to relate to and therefore truly understand a photograph relies on experiences comparable to those in the photograph. 

In the above photo, I am the very insignificant rhythm guitarist in the top left. Although my stint on the musical stage was brief, it was an experience nonetheless that helped to shape the way I view the world (just like all experiences). Because I have played music on a stage in front of a decent amount of people, I am better equipped to understand the men seen in this photo: 

http://www.fatberris.com/2010/01/26/rolling-stones-under-my-dub-todd-terje-remix/

In no way am I attempting to compare myself with Keith Richards and Mick Jagger: that would be an act of heresy. What I am trying to convey through this peculiar means is that I can relate to the actions of these men because of my past experience in a band on stage. There are millions of photos I am able to understand because there are millions of photos depicting scenarios and events similar to those in my life. This is how people understand a photo, by being able to relate with whatever is in it. 

The most popular and intriguing photographs however, depict things not so easily understood as the one of Keith and Mick. A photo of a woman kneeling and sobbing over the body of her dead son shows an experience that most people cannot relate to. It is our inability to understand clashing with our "needs of understanding" that make the most popular photos ones of violence, tragedy and other unthinkable occurrences that your average person cannot even begin to comprehend. 

So as we scroll through the newspaper or turn on the news, we cannot help but be entranced by shocking photos from war torn countries and terrible tragedies. The superficial extent of our viewings of such photographs perplex us greatly: we wish so badly to understand what is happening in the photo, but are limited to just knowing. 

Photographs: The Building Blocks Toward a "Moral Position"

 "Photographs cannot create a moral position, but they can reinforce one-and can help build a nascent one." -Susan Sontag, On Photography (pg. 17)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?scp=8&sq=loughner&st=cse

 Without a context to place this photo, the boy depicted seems like a regular high school kid. There is no evidence to suggest that he is out of the ordinary, let alone capable of unloading a .9mm Glock pistol on an innocent congresswoman and then the surrounding crowd of supporters and fellow members of Arizona's 8th District.

That is where photographs fall short: without a story or place with which to pair a photo, much of its meaning is lost to the uninformed viewer. But when a photo of a seemingly normal kid is said to depict a mentally ill terrorist by the name of Jared Loughner, it takes on a whole new meaning and significance to the story behind it.

The countless articles reporting that Jared Loughner killed six people and wounded 14 others, including
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, give readers feelings of sympathy and catharsis for the victims and their families. At the same time, the image of a ruthless killer is forced into their minds. For a few days the only face that newspapers, news networks and other publications could give the suspect Jared Loughner was that of a happy and superficially normal guy. The "moral position" that reporters were leading their readers to was one of sensitivity toward the victims and hate and disgust toward the one who caused it all: unfortunately for these reporters, the only available photographs of Loughner did not fit the articles' and stories' intended effects on readers and viewers. A plain head shot that one could imagine in his/her own yearbook does not make readers feel any more disgusted or angry. The first photo I saw of Loughner was the one below, and to be honest I thought it was supposed to be a picture of one of the victims. It was not until I had finished reading the article and saw the caption under it that I realized that that happy, nice looking gentleman is the murderer I had just read about. So while Sontag's statement above is correct, it really depends on the caliber and tone of a photo to reinforce people's positions on a story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?scp=8&sq=loughner&st=cse

And then to the delight of countless journalists, publications and news networks (just in time for the Sunday papers), this photo of Jared Loughner was released.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12legal.html?scp=13&sq=jared%20loughner&st=cse

Crazy, mentally ill, killer: just a few words one would use to describe the man in this photo, most likely even without knowing who it is. It is no wonder why this photo could be found on myriad front pages of newspapers and on TV, because this is the face of a man who murders innocent men, women and children. This is the photo journalists want to back up their stories about a man showing signs of mental illness and a progressive retreat from the world. The feelings of anger writers want readers to feel are certainly intensified by this photograph. And, like Sontag says, the photo reinforces ones moral position on the situation.

Obviously there is only one basic "moral position" for someone to take in a situation like this. But reporters and writers influence readers to have a heightened sensitivity to their moral positions, so that they feel more for the story and its characters (and want to read more from that source in the future). Everyone wanted the photo of the shaved, crazed Loughner because they knew that photo would truly show Loughner not as a normal guy, but a cold murderer.

In the end I think Sontag would agree that the now infamous photograph of Jared Loughner epitomizes an image capable of reinforcing one's moral position on the Arizona shooting, and could quite easily "help build a nascent one."

Family Photos

Like most families, photographs and paintings are riddled throughout my house. A portrait of me as a young boy, painted by my uncle, hangs in the living room with one of my sister not far from it. The walls of my room use images to tell the story of my week in Germany, illustrate the intensity of my days in little league baseball and show the excitement of a friend's bar-mitzvahs. Most commonplace in my house are the many staged family photos, which briefly take me back to the dread of having to stand completely still whilst holding a smile and ignoring every mental distress call crying out, "If another flash of blinding light hits your eyes, you better get used to using four rather than five senses." These photos have become nothing more than other pieces of my house, acting as background noise to the rest of my life. But their purpose is much more substantial than what my busy mind holds them to be: I have grown so accustomed to seeing old photographs that I often forget why they are there.

I believe that certain experiences and occurrences affect the body and mind in such a way that we are sometimes driven to hold onto that memory. Although the recording and storing of a person's neurological and physical sensations for a certain point in time is not (yet) possible, there are certain methods by which these feelings can outlive the present. Evolution was kind enough to entrust every human with a virtually limitless space to store memories of past experiences. And with the help of this highly capable brain, written word, photography and video were developed to aid our memories and store more than we can or would ever want to keep in our heads. Photographs, in particular, visually capture the happenings in life we want to remember, almost like a backup file in case of a mental failure. However, and no offense to photographs, four crucial angles by which one experiences a photo's content are unaccounted for: photographs are unable to capture smell, taste, touch and sound. A shortcoming indeed, but not a failure. I personally find that a photo's visual piece of a memory can help to trigger some if not all my other senses to go back to the moment in the photo. When I see a photo of me playing guitar, my mind briefly tricks my ears into becoming filled with hard snare drums, and I remember the bass travelling through the stage and into my legs. Photos act as a stimulant for memories to escape the dark abyss of the human mind and scratch the surface, if only for a nanosecond.

Photographs can not only help us to remember personal experiences but also present us with new knowledge. Photos of far off places or depicting historic events provide a brief glimpse into a world not one's own. For a moment, a person can take on the perspective of someone thousands of miles away or living years in the past, instilling a more personal and realistic view of a certain point in time. Without photographs, history and the lives of others is limited to written descriptions or word of mouth, and our views of contexts other than our own would be distant and impersonal. Photos are capable of telling stories and providing the viewer with not only knowledge but a different way to take in this knowledge.

 I cannot help but think that in this world, which calls for more dependence on and communication with people of differing ethnicities, cultures and nationalities than ever before, photos can help to close the gap between dissimilar worlds through a sharing of perspectives. As corny as this may sound (which is very, very corny), photos help to bring the world together.