Media Experiment #6

 

Over any computer chat, you are free to be in a comfortable area, you can present any person you want, you can multitask when you use computer chat features. You are far less vulnerable, and far less likely to feel like you’ve said something stupid. Chat features such as AIM, facebook chat, and Yahoo messenger are used by people everyday to talk to people who we know in our daily lives, and more importantly people who don’t know. While there is a since of immediacy still present when you are chatting with someone in these forms, the main difference is the environment you create for yourself. If you were in a public sphere having a conversation with someone, you may not feel comfortable- the place is too loud, thoughts of “what if they think I’m hideous?” are most likely racing through your head, not only to you have the person you’re talking to judging what you’re saying, but they’re probably judging everything else. The judgment becomes especially hard to handle if you’re disabled or perhaps are uncomfortable in your own gender or race. In chats you have the ability to alter these things, or even omit them altogether, to almost take control of the setting of your conversation. Turkle presents examples of people who have said they were not comfortable by how they were treated in chats when they stated they were a female in here chapter "Tinysex and Gender Trouble." There was a sense of a “frat house” atmosphere, that could easily be absolved when they changed their gender to male. Out in the real world, we are stuck with our gender, and any potential reaction to it. A woman can’t walk into a bar and suddenly convince everyone to not approach her a certain way because she shouts “I’m a male.” In Turkle’s writings, chats allow us to do just that without little questioning.

In real life, there is far less control when we are having a conversation with someone, and even far harder to simply sign off. Online if you are suddenly uncomfortable with what someone is saying to you, you can simply sign off, and you have successfully escaped the offending conversation. In a public conversation there are rules of behavior; we have to be polite, presentable, and simply walking away mid-conversation is seen as socially unacceptable. Rules are completely made up by you in mediated conversation.

These lines do seem to be blurring with the invention of video chatting or Chat Roulette. Skype is seen as the place to video chat with people. These makes the mediated conversation far less mediated. You might even feel more vulnerable because someone can suddenly video call you, when you are in your own personal space, thus losing control of the conversation. The vulnerability is now once again a factor when using the computer as the mediator, even though it was once the place where you created what ever reality you wanted.

When we have a conversation using media, it is as Marshall Mcluhan explains in is chapter Media as Translators. We are all the stuttering children, because in some way or another we all have our self-perceived faults, and mediated conversation makes the stutter go away, because it becomes another form of language, or another language altogether. It can be likened to Jake Sully's infatuation with the ability to walk and move again in his Avatar form. He feels a since of freedom and mobility that was not offered before. To some people, simply talking in an electronic form serves as another world where the have the ability to do things they could not before.

Media Experiment #5

The slasher film has always been a love/hate genre. I’ve always had an intense love of horror films, but I would never classify the slasher film as a true horror. Slasher films rely on shock value, not on true story telling; the romantic comedy of the horror film world. I don’t dislike it because of the presentation of females.Yet, just like romantic comedies, there are always people going to see them, and there will always be another slasher film in theaters. I think the main reason people are drawn to slasher films is the same reason why they are hated by so many. They rely on the presentation of the body, and more importantly, the female body. As presented in the film Tough Guise: Violence, Media, and the Crisis in Masculinity, in slasher films the “film” always occurs right after the female is either nude or there is some pseudo-sexual moment. This does present the male as the stabbing, sex driven character and the female as the helpless victim who is only around for her breasts. However, I felt that was a very shallow interpretation of the gender roles in slasher films, and the roles go much deeper. Carol Clover analyzes these roles further in her essay Her Body, Himself, specifically using the films Texas Chainsaw Massacre II and Nightmare on Elm Street. First, Clover analyzes the killer themselves. They are often male, yes, but they are not “sex driven.” Usually they are somewhat stuck in boyhood confusion, and killing becomes are alternate for sex. The  victims are often females, and teenage, but there are always male victims. The male victims are usually killed off quickly, which Clover suggests is to present that the “brave” and “could be survivors” are not the real masculine ones, and masculinity can only exist in relation to the female body. Finally, there is always the “final girl.” Yet, rather than being killed, she often survives, by being brave, and calming down the killer. This is far different from the soulless victim that is described in Tough Guise, who is only killed because she is a female who is sexually attractive.

The gender roles in slasher films cannot be so neatly described because they are constantly changing. There is no “alpha sex” presented in the slasher films, and while the draw of seeing a womans breast is still a possibility and thrill for a primarily male audience, I personally don’t feel that anyone goes into slasher films thinking less of woman or feeling that to get sexually fulfilled they need to stab someone. It is simply story telling that can reach a broad audience, and potentially scare them.

            Shows such as Mad Men, however I feel are good windows into the view of gender roles in the 60s. While a completely opposite end of a slasher film, it is similar in that it reaches a huge audience, and the characters are meant to fulfill stereotypes. The men in Mad Men are the definition of chauvinistic, leaders, and modern day Casanova. The females fit all the female “stereotypes” of submissive, vain, motherly, and who can only be placed in the menial jobs. This show, while presenting a certain timeframe where these were jobs seen, is incredibly sexist. It seems to go unnoticed because it is critically acclaimed. While the slasher film is often analyzed and criticized, mostly because it is an easy target. Mad Men glorifies and fetishes the sexist nature of the 60s, rather than self-criticizing it. The males become the heroes to the audience, while the females become the people who the audience are rooting against. I feel that if anything, Mad Men are doing more to set back gender stereotypes more than any slasher film ever could. Being a female, it's difficult to see shows Mad Men get so much fame and glory, where the sexism is just simply brushed off as "perfect portrayal" of the times. I want there to be less talk about how fantastic the show is, and more talk about the over-the-top sexism.

Below is a parody of the sexism on Mad Men

Media Experiment #4

The Fresh Prince of Bel Air is a show featured an African American family, that was well off, happy, and seemingly very comfortable finically. The family, Banks, takes in their nephew from Philadelphia. The family life of the father who is a Judge, the attractive and thin stay at home mother, the two daughters, one who is a vain and the other slightly naive, and Carlton, the “white washed” character who is always taunted for not being “black” enough is completely in disarray. Will, played by Will Smith is the certainly the most “ethnic” of the characters, and is seen as the hero. The Banks family who seems to want to blend into white culture of Bel Air, are often the butt of Will’s antics. The show itself seems to analyze how many African Americans feel the need to blend into white culture, and how this pits against those African Americans who do not do so. In some episodes, Will is the one getting in trouble, while the “grounded” Banks family has to rescue him from yet another disaster. Other episodes it is Will who seems to teach the up-tight Banks family a lesson. Either way, race is constantly at a forefront, as it analyzes and pokes-fun at both these stereotypes. Who is the role-model of the show, goof-ball Will, or the rich successful Banks family, who seems to have abandoned their African-American roots?
Below is a video of Will's typical take on Carlton, and what happens when Carlton tries to slip into a more African American role

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USb-XNYqjZk

A similar way of African Americans are used by the media is through advertisements. Take for example the ad seen below, where there are a group of African American men standing together. This advertisement, from a campaign in 1970, was a break from the norm for African American’s in advertising. Where as before, the goal was to target African American’s specifically for a product, or even for a different product all together, this was the only campaign up to that point that featured the same copy, and overall image in it’s ad; the only difference is that the subjects are African American. In the 70’s, advertisements used such phrases as “Dig it” and “Have mercy!” Phrases that were hip at that time and used by African Americans. From the presentation of the Budwiser ad, the trend for advertising seems to be placing African Americans in typically “white” settings with “white” products, like Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger. This is similar to the presentation of race in Fresh Prince; the Banks family is the subjects in the ads, and Will is the African American consumer. 

Media seems to be attempting to redefine their idea of what the “role” and “place” of African American’s are, by slipping them into advertisements that would reach a broader base, or maybe even attempting to have them redefine themselves, by trying to force into a role that they feel more comfortable seeing them in. This agrees with what Clint C. Wilson says in his piece "Advertising and People of Color" Wilson writes that advertising has reflected the place of non-white. Or that when included it was in a stereotypical way. catering to the way whites saw African Americans. So then what can be said about the African American advertising we see today? Wearing Polo and Abercrombie. Is the reflection that we want to see them as being white? I feel that putting African Americans in typically White population brands is not an elimination of race, but a highlight of how uncomfortable race still makes society-trying to cover it up; a "wolf in sheep's clothing" by the media.

I relate this to the movie Bamboozled by Spike Lee. In that film there was blatant racism, though not as extreme as the examples I've provided here today. But that blatant racism was left unnoticed in the film, just as it is in everyday life. I'm not going to sit here and act like I'm not entertained by Fresh Prince, and I've watched it since I was a little kid. But there is that idea of acceptance, or because we've watched these shows and seen them for so long we've become assimilated. Just as in Bamboozled, it was never questioned. I think these things remain unquestioned because just as in Bamboozled, the actors in Man Tan were African American. "In Fresh Prince the characters are African American, so the actors must be okay with how they are portrayed" or "They agreed to do the advertisement, so it must be fine." The reality is is that these actors or models don't have a say of how they're portrayed; they are portrayed the way media forces them to do so.

Media Experiment #3

When I moved to college, my family made the decision that I would not be taking a TV with me. “It’ll be distracting” was the main complaint from my parents. Part of me was dreading it, what was I going to do when I got bored. It was another comfort from home that I felt I was. I grew up in a house that had a TV in essentially every room, and suddenly was going to have zero. Yet after almost two years without one, I don’t feel like I’m missing anything.

TV used to be the first thing I would be drawn to after coming home from school when I was younger; I’d set my book bag down and settle in on the sofa and watch hours of TV. With the lack of it in my dorm, I don’t feel like much is forgotten. I realized it’s because when I used TV, it was simply background noise, something to focus on in my boredom. Rarely (if ever) was I engaged completely. There was the occasional episode of my favorite show that I would set out to watch, but other than that it was channel flipping and barely listening.

Even now when I go to public places and a TV is on, it is not the focus of my attention. I’ll sit in the restaurant and maybe catch a word that is said here or there. But rarely do I focus on the screen. TV has become a nonexistent entity for me. It just serves as a space filler, or better yet, noise filler. It fills the places that seem to not want any silence- restaurant, bars, peoples homes. Yet I’ve noticed that as time has gone on I’ve found more ways for that space to be filled, such as portable music devices, that can fill noise wherever I go.

Film on the other hand, is a more “set out” I make a plan to go to a film, at a certain time, at a certain place, and it is done at my decision. TV often bombards me when I do not want it to. I don’t decide to go to a restaurant because I know they’re will be a TV present, I go to eat a meal. If I want TV to find me, I’ll go to the internet. But it seems to be that the TV as it exists now is becoming almost a nuisance for me. After living without it, I’ve realized that in my life it is completely unnecessary. I almost find it cumbersome when I walk into a place and a TV is on, as if I am forced to now be engaged with it, though it was not my original intention. Where TV use to be something exclusively for the home, it has completely shifted roles into something that is not only not needed, but something uninvited.

When I watch TV now, I find myself annoyed by the number of commercials, or that I can’t find the exact show I want. Where film and online TV shows can be found to cater my exact needs and wants, TV has it’s own agenda that I have to adapt to. There seems to be no control over TV, which I find increasingly frustrating. TV is no longer a leisure activity but something I wish to escape from.

What was once defined by McLuhan as a "cold" media, has now become "hot." I don't interact with TV in public because it's always around. I don't think about doing it, just like I don't think about breathing. I think this is because television has lost most of it's power. Raymond Williams argues in his chapter "The Technology and the Society" that television has "altered our world" and that it has the power to persuade a group of people. Hearing these things now, it almost seems humors. I think of the TVs I see in bars, and how they serve as simple background noise; another flashy piece of decor in the corner of the bar. TV doesn't have the power to change a society anymore, and whatever it "altered" it's noticeable anymore. TV is just part of the everyday, because it's out with us everyday.

Media Experiment #2

Telephone vs. Photography

I use the phone everyday. Especially now with cell phones: portable, pocket-sized, everyone has one. I feel foolish when I leave the house without it. What is there is an emergency, or I get lost. How will anyone know where I am. How will I know where anyone else it.

I use my phone without even thinking about it. There is no framing, or explicitly deciding “I’m taking this with me.” Most of the times I just grab it without even thinking about it. Putting my phone in my bag is like getting dressed in the morning: it has to be done before you can leave the house. Using it is hardly a production, either. I take it out when I want, and no one pays much attention to the fact that I’m using it. people can go about their daily business. If I pass someone on the street and they have a phone out, my first thought isn’t “What on earth are they doing with that thing?” I’m not curious about it. And no one is curious about what I’m doing with my. Phones have become like peoples arms: we can trust it will always be there, and if it’s not then something has gone terribly wrong.

Photography, on the other hand, is much different. Unlike the phone, we decide to take a camera with us. There is a decision making process for most of us to carry the extra weight of a camera with us to a specific location. Do I have room for this camera? Will I need to take pictures? There are “picture-worthy events,” which is hardly the case for a phone. Everything is a phone worthy event, and we always have room for our phones. Cameras seem to be one piece of technology that remains something that people do not take with them everywhere. People are still curious about a person with a camera. When someone takes out a camera, people look towards the lens. We worry whether we will look good for the camera. There is an “exposure” element to being in a picture, and even more of a vulnerability if you are in fact the person with the camera. People will stare at you, wonder what you’re taking pictures of, maybe even ask you to stop. Cameras have no quite blended in with the framework of society. I don’t use my camera very often, but when I do, there is a specific reasoning behind it.

However, those lines are beginning to blur with the no growing popularity of camera-phones. Where before they were completely separate spheres, and most people didn’t use “camera” and “phone” even in the same sentence, I now carry a camera wherever I carry my phone. The camera phone, as Sontag puts in in her book "On Photography," I feel has truly established the "chronic voyeuristic relation" that she discusses; now we feel we are much more inclined to take pictures of anything, anywhere, and of anyone. The camera phone makes us feel entitled. With the camera phone, it makes every subject seem the same. When we take a photograph with our camera phone, I would argue it loses any "specialness" the subject has, or as Sontag puts it, puts all subjects at the same level. When I took a photo before, I did it for an explicit purpose. But now since I always have a camera with me on my phone, I snap photos without really thinking of what I'm taking a picture of.

As the technology increases, these camera-phone shots are hardly blurry snapshots taken for no reason, they are high quality. I definitely notice a use of cameras more now that I can use it in the same way as I use a phone - without much thought. Much like the phones themselves, the camera aspect of a phone has become something that is expected. While I am certinly trying to achieve something different with a camera vs. a phone, or even a camera vs. a camera-phone, the use of both of these has increased for me.

Media Experiment #1

When I saw the words “abstain from as much technology as possible for as long as possible” my first thought was that it wouldn’t be the “as much techonolgy” part that was hard, it would be the “as long as possible.”

There is no doubt that I am a tech junkie. I sit pretty much everywhere with laptop in my lap, iPhone beside me, my kindle isn’t out of sight, and my ear buds are most definitely in. I knew for this media experiment I had a lot I could stop using. Maybe I won’t take my computer to any of my classes. Maybe I would leave my phone at my dorm for a day. But even the thought made me panic. I realized it was going to be a challenge for even a day, but I wasn’t expecting to HAVE to do it for three.

Around the time I was going to start this experiment, I lost my phone. Shortly after that, my computer completely malfunctioned and was unuseable. So here I was, like it or not, completely diconnected.

The shut-down happened on Monday. I walked to campus with no more than a notebook and pen in my backpack. I felt frantic, and slightly lost. “Think of all the texts I’m missing.” Apparently I had forgotten about my situation, because my first instinct when I got to class was to check my phone for missed calls or texts, only to have this sense of dread, as I shuffled around my book-bag. Then I sat back and realized it would not be there no mater how much I searched.

Meeting up with friends was nearly impossible. I couldn’t text them, call them, email them, tweet them, inbox them, or write on their wall. I essentially just had to show up at their door and hope they were there. Despite as stalker-esque as this might have seemed, they hid their annoyance and seemed to understand. I felt like a burden to all those around me. Why wasn’t I more reachable? This was all my fault. I’m being a terrible friend. By the time this is over I will have no more friends. Just a few of my paranoid thoughts.

I figured I would get used to it. But the paranoia and panic never went away. Not only could I not do any social networking, doing school work was difficult. I could not email professor, look up information, and any writing of any papers I had to do was done at the computer centers around campus; which if you have been there know is a less than relaxing environment.

Maybe it was because I was forced to do go through this process, rather than by my own decesion, but I was miserable and lost without my phone or computer. Yes, I do spend time idly surfing Facebook and other websites, and sometimes I will look at my phone for no reason, but the other times I’m using it because it is a necessity. If you can’t be reached by your friends in a single texts, relationships can be slightly strained, or overly complicated. If I can’t write a paper for class then I fall behind.

At one point spending time without technology could have been possible and rather relieving. However in a society where media is the glue for most of our daily activities and social interactions, it is hardly a “freeing” or blissful experience.

When I got my replacement phone Wednesday and my computer was fixed shortly after, I had a sudden sense of calm. Everything seemed to fall back into place. I no longer felt like some strange disconnected-outsider. I was back in my home-country, and felt like once again I was a member of society.

This process made me think about Marshall MuLuhan's ideas on "hot" and "cold" media. He makes the distinction that some media are hot because they have little to no interaction, while some are cold because they require lots of interaction. I wonder if any media can truly be hot. There may have been a time when someone using technology or watching a movie really did not have any other interactions. But now, we depend on our technology for those interactions. I was completely socially handicapped without my forms of media. Though a computer may not traditionally be thought of as "hot" since we merely sit with them and there is little interaction, it is much more complicated than that. I need my computer for my interactions. Any interaction that happens without it just doesn't seem real. 

Below is a link of an article showing two sides of “unplugging”:

http://jeremymavis.com/2011/01/18/abstaining-from-technology/