Sunday, September 21, 2008
The "Unarmed" Eye
Ben and I were given a quote on Thursday which talked about the idea of a person creating something and then how another person may interpret that creation. There is this idea that no one will never know what a creator meant while coming up with their product, so to speak. This makes sense because no one is inside that person’s head. Ben and I came up with the idea that the “unarmed” eye views something such as a picture or writing, differently from the original person who created it and the original idea of that person. This is comparable to the regular public viewing advertisements in magazines. They are meant to sell clothes or a certain product, however there are underlying meanings in these photos which reinforce the hegemonic views that our society holds. Some of these views consist of male domination over females and how having money to buy designer products is important in order to have a higher social status. Not all people would choose to look at an advertisement this way, however being trained through the CMC major to analyze these things, it is hard for me not too. Now whenever I read a magazine or am watching TV all I notice are these underlying meanings in every advertisement that I see. The advertiser may not intentionally mean for these thoughts to come about because these values are so strong in our society, but they are there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Aubrey I like the fact that you took this back to CMC 100 in Dr. Cavenaugh’s class, because I wasn’t even thinking of that on Thursday when we discussed this quote in class. I was merely thinking about one person taking meaning from a specific text that was different from that original intended meaning that the creator had in mind. From what I understand, you have taken this idea and stretched it to encompass a greater field. Perhaps that there are hidden meanings within texts that were never even conceived it’s the creator. Or that there are multiple meanings and significance within a text: some intentional, other coincidental, and even others obscure and conjured up by the person analyzing the text. With every text (probably with very few exceptions) there are a multitude of meanings that can be derived from it depending on who the reader is.
I have to slightly disagree with you on the point you make about “no one will ever know what [the] a creator meant.” I think that among the multitude of possible meanings one can come up with about a certain text, if presented well, the creator should be able to get his message across (if that is his/her intention). I believe some texts are meant to be interpreted differently by the reader; art for example.
I think that relating this back to advertisements and what not, which are full of underlying meanings is another great angle you took on this. I believe that most of the underlying meanings and messages in advertisements are not picked up on all too often. I say this simply because before I began this major I did not pick up on them. The marketing agencies create such meanings, messages, representations, what have you, that are aesthetically pleasing and subliminally their message may get across, however it is probably not what you pick up on at first.
So in conclusion, Aubrey it was great working with you and I like where your head’s at!
Walter Benjamin talked a lot about the concept of the original and how mechanical reproduction has stripped the work of art of its “aura.” I was recently reading a passage from Martin Heidegger’s Discourse on Thinking that really reminded me of these concepts from Benjamin.
Heidegger spoke about the “loss of human autochthony” as a by product of technological innovation. Heidegger used the term autochthony to describe the rootedness, or relation to ones own culture/homeland. He asserted that everything is a product of its roots in a native soil, and with technological innovation, we are rapidly losing this connection to our native soil.
This reflects Benjamin’s notion of the loss of aura because he believed that we are losing the true meaning of a work of art because it is being removed from its original context, the time, place, and relation to the people that created it (that which gives the work of art its meaning).
Both of these philosophers describe a process of the loss of relationship to one’s context as a result of technology. Both deal with the relationship to an object or idea to its context and how this relationship establishes meaning. Heidegger put it best when he said, “the power concealed in modern technology determines the relation of man to that which exists.”
It is also interesting that both philosophers stipulated that, as we lose one thing, we gain another. Heidegger talks about this notion in some cryptic language which I do not quite fully understand: “the meaning pervading technology hides itself…”
I just found this juxtaposition interesting and thought I would share.
Post a Comment