Writing Two Group C Reaction
This is the second writing by Eric Brennan where I found reading to be enjoyable because the writer’s points are clear and well stated. Not that I always agree or even disagree. There is a strong writer’s voice I hear, and that makes it enjoyable. There was one point made, however, that sounded too academic, void of personality. Brennan says that because viewers often misinterpret the producers intent, “This is why advertisers always consider viewers when producing images. Marketing firms are very successful because they acknowledge viewers as individuals.This is why advertisers always consider viewers when producing images. Marketing firms are very successful because they acknowledge viewers as individuals.” Call me a pessimist, but I think there is a process of creating consumers, so that marketing firms don’t get it wrong because they have trained us. When quality visuals are hard to find we “make do”. The word consider implied some altruistic context. I liken it more to manipulation.
Michelle Colbaugh’s statement about how propaganda posters from World War II Germany and Stalin’s Russia to “brainwash the minds of the people through school, religion, and imagery to the point where their individual sense of looking was diseased by inherited slander that skewed their perception of reading the posters,” was profound, and made me think about republican and democratic conventions currently taking place... the camera angles, panning to the black guy or the senior in the audience tactics to target demographics. It seems transparent, but apparently, someone knows that the stuff works.
James Battistelli says, “We as individuals in a digital age have the resources to produce anything we want digitally and then comment on it and other media like it.” I agree with this, but, being a teacher, I hear the praise but I read complaints. I think when people are happy, they go about their day happy. I question if this age of rating makes us seek to knit pick instead of thinking enjoyment first. I don’t know. Also, the mentioning of youtube made me think about what ends up getting attention is childish stuff, but thank goodness for the inventions. The resources are powerful. Battistelli sums up the readings by stating that the viewer is given power as producer. I am questioning in my head if this is the same as empowering viewers. I wonder.
I also enjoyed what Brennan wrote about aesthetics and a hierarchy of taste. The power of those in charge of declaring what is valuable should always be questioned, so I was completely on board with this portion of the writing. Crystal Miller’s summaries, “When viewing a representation/symbol, we have evolved our thinking to that the object and its’ representation are now visual equals, even though functionality renders them different.” It is this statement that connects taste. I think understanding, or being, in tune with what we really are seeing refines our taste. Miller goes on to say that our individual taste has more widely acceptable standards because it belongs to the individual. That said there is still acceptance culturally based on that hierarchy Brennan was referring to in his paper.
After reading everyone’s statements, I thought about how our taste changes or evolves, and I wondered if we mature or if we simply become worn down by the culture. I also thought about the chosen one’s whose job it is to be in the front of us, our tastes, visually. Where do they get their taste, or how are their sensibilities formed? My inner pessimism says it is all to change the direction of the sheep...