simonwatson91

Tuesday 17 May 2011

Q5

Q5. 'Advertising doesn't sell things; all advertising does is change the way people think or feel' (Jeremy Bullmore). Evaluate this statement with reference to selected critical theories.

To make a fair evaluation of this statement, one must take note of the context in which it was said and the work and position of the person who said it. At first glance one would think that Bullmore’s statement was made to defend advertising and it’s associations with questionable consumerist industries -“all advertising does is”. The seemingly defensive nature of the comment, at first, detracts from it’s credibility, however I believe that it was said in order to defend his profession against the widespread prejudice that people have for the advertising industry, “On more than one occasion, it has sought to

defend itself on the grounds that it doesn’t really work.’’-Bullmore. If the statement was not meant to defend the industry it would have been made, at least, to clear up a common misconception. It is not difficult to see that Bullmore’s work is quite paradoxical and at times humorous, ‘’It is common knowledge that the people who work in it manipulate the values and aspirations of the entire nation, yet twice as many people work in McDonald’s (UK) as in all British advertising agencies put together.’’ – Bullmore (1998). He makes statements like these that are so blatantly honest, one can only think that what he says is to be believed i.e. the truth. However this is not a fair judgment as it does not prove the statement against any other texts or theory’s.

The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the relevance and credibility of Jeremy Bullmore’s statement by applying it to popular theory’s about ‘consumer commodity’ and the intended affect of advertising and the media, from a number of different texts.

Firstly it is important to note that Bullmore refers to advertising in a certain way –‘’I’ve often been critical of commentators who use the word advertising as if it were one

great homogeneous activity; as if all advertising, all advertisements,

worked in the same way and towards the same purpose.’’ – Bullmore. He believes that the term can be filtered down to two root forms; “ 1) advertising that people go looking for and 2) advertising that goes looking for people”. The statement of which this essay is based on applies to the second type “2) advertising that goes looking for people”.

Vance Packard painted a grim picture in “The Hidden Persuaders” (1957). Packard wrote that, rather then helping us achieve our human needs, the big businesses were manipulating our desires, using techniques ranging from the exploitation of sexual images to subliminal messaging. This is in fitting with Bullmore’s statement that advertising is actively manipulative rather then simply informative. I should mention that Bullmore does not convey any particular belief that it is one or the other though, as he states that there are two root forms of advertising “1) and 2)” as mentioned before.

“The purpose of publicity is to make the spectator marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life. Not with the way of life of society, but with his own within it. It suggests that if he buys what it is offering, his life will become better. It offers him an improved alternative to what he is.” –Berger, J .

Berger is shedding light on the notion that advertising ‘changes the way that people think and feel’ about their lives. The man thinks that if he owns the paraphernalia depicted in the desirable setting that is portrayed, then he will enhance his own life. “It proposes to each of us that we transform ourselves, or our lives by buying something more. This more, it proposes, will make us in some way richer-even though we will be poorer by having spent our money”. - Berger, ‘Ways of Seeing’

- prada men’s wear spring/summer add campaign.

This is a screen shot from a short video add that depicts men wearing Prada, achieving a near impossible feat as a display of affluence, virility and confidence, in front/above of an audience consisting of wealthy young women and unthreatening men. The add makes the consumer believe that if they buy into this product they too will be able to achieve this kind of recognition and social status. It is an example of a type of advert that people are very critical towards. They portray a lifestyle that is fictional and unobtainable, yet they encourage young people to try and achieve it.

By consuming we can form bonds with others in our consumerist culture. Consumption can also create a linkage between us, and a product that we use to help define who we are. A person might by a pretty notebook for example over a regular budget copybook. The consumer needs the object in order to work and fulfill their idealized roll in society. The consumer does not ‘need’ the ‘pretty notebook’ any more then the budget one, but there is a strong inner motivation that urges the consumer to purchase the ‘pretty’ more expensive product. Firstly the individual may admire the seemingly beautiful and high quality standard of manufacture, they will feel that by owning this product they are enhancing their professional appearance and will enjoy the benefits of this elevated persona – more credibility and perhaps a higher standard of work that is linked to the quality of the product. This would not be the case if the consumer had not formed a link between them and the product.

The text “The product and the brand”

By Burleigh B. Gardner and Sidney J. Levy, is quite relevant to this idea that advertising instills a need within the consumer by ‘changing the way they feel’. When studying the way in which people form certain judgments about competitive objects in their heads, the authors have written: “The net result is a public image, a character or personality that may be more important for the overall status (and sales) of the brand than many technical facts about the product. Conceiving of a brand in this way calls for a re-thinking of brand advertising.” The authors conclude with the though that: “it is more profitable to think of an advertisement as a contribution to the complex symbol which is the brand image as part of the long-term investment in the reputation of the brand.”

Consumers consume because they want something, to establish relationships, define their roll within society and to help define who they are as well. The difference between a want and need is very short. Needing something is the most powerful motivation or thinking that one needs something – part of the advertisers job is to convince people that they need the relevant product. Advertisers are now trying to apply this need ‘consumers’ as young as one year old.

One particular type of advertising method is the ‘perches product, get mate’ strategy. This mixes the need of a relationship and sexual gratification, then links the product to a possibility of obtaining these things.

- this is an add created by Saachi & Saachi America, in 1978.

The add is placed strategically on its own among a plethora of adds that feature no imagery so it stands out very well. The copy on the advert is at the top of the hierarchy of the composition. The copy is also assigned twice as much space as the image of the actual product to ensure that the idea behind the add is delivered more memorably then what it is the consumer is actually buying. It uses the typical ‘buy product get mate’ strategy, manipulating the consumer into thinking that if he buys this product he will improve his chances of getting a mate and perhaps fulfill one of his basic needs – sexual gratification “For men, sex starts with kissing”.

My conclusion is that Bullmore’s statement that “advertising doesn’t sell things; all it does is change the way people think or feel” is correct, albeit paradoxical. In a society that has personal social envy and widespread ignorance instilled in its very core “Publicity helps to mask and compensate for all that is undemocratic within society. And it also masks what is happening in the rest of the world. – Berger. This manipulative form of advertising that people recognize as a social ill is aimed at us to make us believe that we need what they are paid to advertise from as early as one year old. In a way advertising doesn’t sell things it helps form our beliefs, our “thoughts and feelings”. Noam Chomsky explained the cycle well, “ The media are part of the system of power. They produce a product, the product is sold to the market, the market is advertising (advertisers). Advertising is where the money comes from. The product being sold to the advertisers is the audience or audiences”. Thus creating a ferocious cycle and ever-expanding industry. This can leave one thinking what can we do to get away from this vicious, manipulative circle?

“For us, the hope of intellectual independence is to resist, and the necessary first step in resistance is to discover how the institutional grip is laid upon our mind.” -Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (1987).

Q5. 'Advertising doesn't sell things; all advertising does is change the way people think or feel' (Jeremy Bullmore). Evaluate this statement with reference to selected critical theories.

Firstly it is important to note that Bullmore refers to advertising in a certain way –‘’I’ve often been critical of commentators who use the word advertising as if it were one

great homogeneous activity; as if all advertising, all advertisements,

- prada men’s wear spring/summer add campaign.

The text “The product and the brand”

- this is an add created by Saachi & Saachi America, in 1978.

notes on identity and the media

Reading is a private activity to the greatest extent. You can read to your child. Or be read to at mass by the priest or whoever may be reading the bible txt. But how does one know that what they are hearing is the truth, and I mean the truth in the sense that it exist upon the page the reader is looking at, and nothing more. How many of us have made up the story that we are reading to the child just so we can reach the quota of “two stories before bed” a little bit faster. This is, in my mind a huge problem that the individual has with the idea of being read to – recognizably or subliminally. This is in my mind a large factor in how warmly the idea of television has been accepted. “Seeing is believing”. And with television “seeing” can be a shared experience. For example you are reading this essay on your own, most likely to yourself. While you are reading it, you could possibly be sat in a lounge in front of a television, surrounded by other people watching that television. This act of sharing in a ritualistic way, I believe, appeals to the individual on a very basic and natural level. It is, however, in contradiction to the fact that sitting still, and staring at one thing for prolonged periods of time, is a very unnatural act. But is it a more natural act then reading? Is it healthier? Does it bring people together, or make them into more self-absorbed creatures? Did it’s invention bring about the transformation of modernism to postmodernism? Whether we are to trust television (the news) or not, is irrelevant.

The fact is that people do and probably always will believe what they see. It is how we have evolved – you see something therefore it is real. It is only when you stop to think about it, that any sort of doubt can occur. This is stating the obvious. But what is easier, to question something, or to talk to your friend about the interesting thing you have just “seen” on television? The answer will pretty much always be the latter. However, of course there are well known thinkers, such as Marshal McLuhan, Noam Chomsky, J. Macgregor Wise and Ronald de Souse, who all doggedly ridicule the lies of the media. McLuhan’s theory that literature has created the civilized man is of particular interest. As according to him the introduction of television was causing man to revert or perhaps evolve back to a more tribal man. Now instead of looking at static letters on a page, one could become absorbed in a much more tactile and lifelike sense of “learning” or entertainment.

He believed that the viewer (of television) was taking part in a sort of game. Participation was seen in the form of turning on the television – reasonable. He also believed, or put it that the viewer was stoned – reasonable, as the viewer must be in a mild sense of altered consciousness. This shift from a literary focal point, to a technical one, he eloquently put as “The printed book as the agent of a primitivist and romantic revival. Sheer visual quantity evokes the magical resonance of the tribal hoard. The box office looms as an echo chambered return to bardic incantation”. McLuhan, being a Joycean scholar, goes out of his way to animate his writing, which in a way, is also indicative of his belief that television is superior form of communication than print. He also believed that television was a superior media to the radio. However, he, on many occasions would point out the strengths and weaknesses of these two media, with respect to one another. For example in the Nixon vs. Kennedy pre-election debates, he noted that Nixon was a far superior candidate to Kennedy, when listened to on the radio. However, Kennedy, being a household symbol and far more capable of carrying himself on stage, came across superior on screen. In turn, highlighting the ability of television to misguide and influence the viewer.

McLuhan also believed that the western/civilized man was far more influenced by the information that he would take in through his eyes, as apposed to his ears. I found this point to be particularly interesting due to the reasons for its occurrence. When comparing the non-literate, tribal man, to the “civilized” western man, he found that the westerner neglects the use of his ears due to the conditioning of reading and writing print for a lifetime. Also the western man has to block out a huge percentage of the sounds that he hears every day. These are the sounds of busses and industry. Where as the tribal man, living and hunting on the veld, must be always alert to any external noises. He relies much more heavily on his sense of hearing than his sense of sight – for his survival. Vise versa the western man relies on his sense of sight for his own survival, or ability to thrive in his environment, i.e. he needs to read and add to work and earn money. Which brings me back to the question, which is a more useful form of communication, radio, or television? Which of course raises the question, what are you trying to communicate? Which given the number of variables, makes it very difficult to answer.

This brings me onto Noam Chomsky’s work. He raised the idea, and blatantly proved that the media acts as a profitable machine, without any regard for honesty. “The media are part of the system of power. They produce a product, the product is sold to the market, the market is advertising (advertisers). Advertising is where the money comes from. The product being sold to the advertisers is the audience or audiences”. Thus creating a ferocious cycle and ever-expanding industry. Hence, the advertising industry has grown in the same rate as television – they have become one.

So it can only leave one wondering, what effect does this have on me as an individual? Should I be less self-centered? If I was to read more would I become less tactile? Does watching television make me a more similar creature to my tribal ancestors? It is interesting to look at the change in society over the last fifty years when thinking about the impact of television. In my eyes (not my ears) it appears that people have become less reserved, and more extraverted – in certain environments. Which matches what McLuhan was saying about the tribal evocations of watching television. But the fact that people have become far more self-involved, does not match McLuhan’s theory that television is a “tribalising” medium. It does not match because the tribal man is not self-involved, he sees himself, not as an individual, but as a small part of a much larger organism – the tribe.

Which raises yet another question – has western culture dictated a false understanding of identity within us? For example an English student moves to America. She fills her room with various items and paraphernalia that are indicative of her culture. This is to territorialize, and say something about who she is. But the things that now fill her room are only objects, and do not give a full picture of her identity. Neither does her passport, or her CD collection for that matter. It is how she thinks and feels that makes her who she is.

It is only by entering into conversation with her that we can get an honest picture of her personality, if at all. You might be able to get some, rough idea of her personality from seeing various videos that she might feature in, but in my opinion it would not be a reliable source of identifying her properly. It is only when you are face to face with a person – seeing all of their twitches, instant reactions and responses, that you can get an honest idea of their identity. This is why televised political debates are misleading.

I am using the word identity, not in the ephemeral, territorial sense, but in the sense that it is how you act and react to things – with your personality making up a large part of your identity. Your identity is in your head. This is where television, in my mind, plays such a large part in shaping us as individuals. As identity is not a physical object, and is manifested within the individuals mind, it is vulnerable to influence such as television and radio (music). Perhaps this is why the invention of television has had such a profound effect on society. Also various musical movements such as hip-hop, jazz, pop, punk etc, are evidence of this external influence on the individuals’ identity. Whether this is of course true, I cannot say. I cannot say for sure, that I would be a very different person to who I am today, if I had never listened to music or watched the television. I do think that it would have an effect on my identity though. But how much of what I think, and in turn feel, has been influenced by my nineteen years of watching television and listening to music…

From another angle, how much can we tell about a person from the music that they might create? Is it possible that rather then entering into conversation with an individual, we could tell more about them by the music that they might create if given an instrument? Whether one is a greater indicator of an individual’s identity is somewhat irrelevant. The interesting point is that individuality/identity can be observed from creative expression – sculpture, painting, singing, dancing or joke telling. Joke telling, or rather ‘sense of humour’ is an interesting subject when talking about factors that give away ones identity. I find it so interesting because a persons sense of humour, be it dry, witty or vulgar, plays a huge role in how that person attracts, and is attracted to other people. Laughter is one of the first expressions that an individual shares with another human being. Like when a baby laughs at his mother, as she plays peek-a-boo with him. Laughter is, of course, one of the human expressions of joy. The “funny bone”, be it a figure of speech is a vital part of the human anatomy. We need it to interact and in turn fulfill our basic human needs. This is probably why comedy makes up such a huge part of the entertainment industry and television

Thursday 12 May 2011

portfolio task 4 - postmodern design

Berry, F (2006) “whimsical entropy” http://www.postmodern-art.com/postmodern_art_08.html

This watercolour shows many postmodern traits. The piece contains or displays a ‘meditative poem of sorrow’ laid out in a manner that allows the reader to choose the order in which to read it, which chimes true to the postmodern ideal that the work is there for the individuals own interpretation. The image in the top left of the piece could be viewed as mockery of authoritarian ideals. The image at top left has a bloodshot eye on the left hand side of its face, a crown depicting a fortress and a formal dress hat for a mouth that is barking orders at an obedient soldier.

Ulzon, J (20th of October 1973 – present) “Sydney opera house” http://www.101worldtravel.com/2010/06/23/the-sydney-opera-house/

The Sydney opera house is one of Australia’s most famous buildings. Its design is derived from the form of the ocean and seagulls flying which takes a brave leap away from modernist obsession with geometrical perfection.

Dixon, T. “Cappellini S-chair” http://www.dezeen.com/2009/06/22/competition-win-a-cappellini-s-chair-by-tom-dixon/

This Cappellini S-chair is a good example of postmodern design because of its whimsical nature that defies modernist geometrical conventions and pays most attention to form. Its abstract design is open to interpretation. As a whole the chair could be looked at and pondered about just as much as it could be sat on.

Ettore Sottsass, (1981) “book shelf” http://fafi.coolcats.fr/category/i-love-what-you-do/

The Italian collective Ettore Sottsass, comprised of a group of designers and architects who were fed up with utilitarian, humorless nature of modernist design. They created a created a plethora of wacky furnishings, that were full of humor and intrigue to counteract the increasing dullness of modernist design. They disbanded in 1988.

Lissitzky, E ( 1920) “beat the whites with the red wedge”

This is a constructivist poster that displays the arbitrary placement of geometric shapes. This convention was used a lot in postmodernist graphics.

Wednesday 11 May 2011

portfolio task 3 - avant-garde

noun (usu. the avant-garde)

new and unusual or experimental ideas, esp. in the arts, or the people introducing them : works by artists of the Russian avant-garde.

adjective

favoring or introducing such new ideas : a controversial avant-garde composer.

Avant-garde, derived from the word vanguard, which denotes the group of soldiers at the for-front of an attack, is a fitting term for the convention. Avant-garde artists were labeled as such due to their will to break from the mould set by society and their predecessors. Avant-garde artists were those at the for-front of controversial expression. Similar to different nations and religions having martial power, to define their strength, they would also have intellectual power, which to an extent was defined by their artists – the avant-garde. When thinking of how one would recognize an artist as avant-garde, they would have to compare them to their counterparts and predecessors, then evaluate whether they were creating original work that challenged current conventions.

Advanced guard before the avant-garde.

Dutch art; 1700,

The Dutch republic established at the end of the 16^th century was the first middle class democracy in Europe. The protestant economy was free from religious and political oppression from other ‘now-European’ countries. The economy was prosperous and for the most part middle-class. This meant that the Dutch artist of the time had an audience that could support them. Gerhard Du and Peter de Hook were popular artists of the time, famous for their vignettes of everyday life. When the Dutch economy crumbled due to its small population and combined British and French pressure. Dutch art was largely forgotten, until Napoleon conquered the Netherlands at the beginning of the 19^th century. He returned to Paris with many examples of the Dutch masters as cultural loot. The French artists of the time discovered these homage’s to everyday life while looking for a non-academic model, as a president for a new realism outside of the academy. This dutch art provided a refreshing counterpoint to the increasingly irrelevant French academic art.

Gustav Courbet caught the eye of the French middle class by painting the feared and suspicious lower class, ‘becoming middleclass’. He presented a new class of people in the provinces. It was a class that was hard to place and for this reason, made the bourgeoisie uncomfortable, and intrigued.

Courbet’s avant-gardism was that he was an outsider who discarded the excepted system of representation, also his content – undesirable class mobility.

Corbet, G (1850) “Bauern von Flagey bei der Rückkehr vom Markt”

Corbet’s chief offence was to stirred up a class unease – there were no fixed boundaries to identify class status anymore.

Courbet entered the battlefield of what to paint, but his predecessor Edouard Manet took one step further and explored ‘how to paint’. Manet combined scenes of unseemly social conduct with new ways of painting. This avant-garde approach that Manet had lead to him being marked as the beginning of a trajectory that would lead to contemporary painting.

portfolio task 2. modernist graphic design

Herbert Bayer (1900-1985) ‘’CCA - Save waste paper” http://library.rit.edu/gda/designer/herbert-bayer

This piece of graphic design demonstrates the usual modernist convention of ‘function before form’. It uses typical san-serif type. There are only two block colours used in the composition and the piece delivers the message as efficiently as it possibly can.

Bayer, H (1900-1985) ‘’Container Corporation of America: Billions of powdered eggs’’ http://library.rit.edu/gda/designer/herbert-bayer

This piece features Bayer’s own sans-serif type known as “universal” which helped to define the Bauhaus aesthetic. Again the piece conveys it’s message as efficiently as it possibly can. It does this using only one colour making it cheap and simple to reproduce.

The image is also composed of an egg/glob depicting the America’s, of course – however the sun is shining on the globe from the western side and casting a stark shadow towards the east. This creates a uniform right angle in the middle of the poster and perhaps conveys some hidden message or idea.

metropolis - silent science fiction film created by the famed director Fritz Lang and released in 1927. Set in the year 2000. http://www.popartuk.com/film/metropolis/metropolis-hr15555-poster.asp

the piece fits the modernist graphic design vernacular quite well with its strong industrial feel, sans-serif type and basic yet effective imagery. The film that it is advertising has very modernist ideals throughout. It depicts the perfect industrial prosperous metropolis.

Games, A (1940’s) ‘’grow your own food” http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/image_galleries/artists_abram_games_gallery.shtml

This piece exercises the modernist ‘function followed by form’ ethos very definitely. The whole image is a product of the functionality of the poster i.e. the form of the spade and the form of the ship are manipulated to convey the idea/function of the poster.

Games, A (1940’s) “brush the cobwebs away” http://www.benuri.org.uk/Games.htm

This propaganda poster shows off Game’s ‘maximum meaning, minimum means’ technique quite well. The imagery/form is completely striped down to draw maximum attention to the message/function of the work.

Saturday 13 November 2010

contextual studies: modernism + modernity/thoughts

modernity, i think could be compared to the growth of character in an individual like Billy (the guy with red hair) [society] from one flew over the cuckoo's nest - he is a quiet and controlled individual who does not question anything. he keeps his head down. but when he is exposed to Randle (jack nicolson) [industry] he becomes a new, seemingly more healthy and "normal" individual. sadly this new found strength of character does not serve him well and he ends up killing himself. whether that part is in any relation to the analogy of modernity that i am trying to create, i don't know.
i am aware that it is quite a strange and possibly nonsensical analogy but what i am trying to question is whether modernity is a healthy or unhealthy phenomenon. i am also aware that psychology is a product of modernity and the worry that people had about the effect that this rapidly evolving society would have on the mind. whatever the answer may be, it certainly made for some good cinema! the interior design and decoration is also quite modernistic, so to speak, - function over form like iv never seen before!

moving away from suicide, lobotomy's and good cinema, we have this beautiful Degas "the absinthe drinker". Absinthe, ironically, was banned from mainland Europe because it was felt that it was leading to a demise in society. i think it is still illegal in the UK to this day actually. im not sure though. But the painting - depicting a woman in a a very human, honest state. i believe, was a very revolutionary piece of work, as it questions such ideals as monogamy, and in turn the church. which gives rise to another factor of modernity - the shift in power from the church/religion to government. but to address the painting at hand the image of this pretty young woman, looking quite unhappy, or even depressed, sat next to an older, uninterested and in my eyes, less attractive man. the woman looks somewhat uncomfortable as well, her bach is hunched her shoulders stiff, her hands are at her sides and her chin is down. the alcohol on the table is sat there like some sort of medication, to cure her discontent with the society that she lives in, or at least to make the night that is about to unfold a little more bearable!

graphic design vs. fine art: graphic design, in my mind, is analytical and based on common sense rather than being conceptual and expressive. a painting or sculpture does not have to sell anything other than an idea perhaps. while graphic design is solely built to sell things like paintings and sculptures strangely. however certain pieces of graphic design were, and still are considered to be art forms for example this cigarette advert by Alphonse Mucha is ART Nouveau.

"weapons of mass communication"

both images have a propaganda like underlying themes. well the lumley obviously is a propaganda poster

Daddy, what did you do in the Great War? poster by Savile Lumley (1915)

The Uncle Sam Range (1876) Advertising Image by Schumacher & Ettlinger, New York