Illusions

Within only a few seconds of beginning Sturken and Cartwright’s article “Viewer Make Meaning,” I had developed a conclusion about what the authors of the article were going to say.

The example that immediately sprang to my mind is the idea of an optical illusion.

Consider the picture below:

What do you see? 

This is a classic, perhaps the most classic, example of an optical illusion.  Some people see two faces looking at each other.  Some people see a wine goblet.  Some people still, see both.

But what did the artist intend to be seen?

This example mirrors precisely what Sturken and Cartwright’s article alludes to: First, that “meanings are produced through the complex negotiations that make up the social process and practices through which we produce and interpret images.”

Wow.  So everything we see as consumers is intentional?

Second, the article indicates that “most, if not all, images have a meaning that is preferred by their producers.”  The article cites advertisers as a great example of this.  To illustrate this point, consider the Dove campaign and ads.  Personally, I am a huge fan of the Dove campaign.  I see it as nothing but a dedicated, honest company’s attempt to show women how to embrace their bodies and themselves as beautiful.

However, my sociology class recently discussed the Dove campaign at length, and one of my classmates brought to my attention that perhaps – just perhaps – Dove was actually using their “Real Beauty” campaign as an effective advertising strategy. 

Now, I don’t necessarily agree with my classmates’ hypothesis (I am after all a huge fan of the company policies, classes, and advertisements after all!)  But the idea did get me thinking about what I see, versus what the company intends for me to see.  The two are very distinctly linked, and it is important that as a consumer of media (and especially of advertising) that I see that and remember it.  How do producers, especially advertisers, so effectively cause consumers to believe in products?  

The Reality Behind Photographs

“Images, Politics, and Power” by Sturken and Cartwright offers a extremely thorough perspective on the significance of photographs.  Whether they are icons, paintings, or photographs taken with a traditional or digital camera, images in general have an incredibly important role in our society.

Think about it.  What is the one thing that you absolutely can’t leave home without?  Drive without?  Travel without?  Purchase alcohol without?  Use a credit card without?

Your photo I.D.

I probably have to show or swipe my college photo I.D. card a minimum of three times a day.  Now that I am a junior in college and live in an apartment, I don’t have to use it nearly as often as I did in the past, but I still use it every time I want to purchase food or enter a university building.

Is it possible that nationally and even globally as a society, depend on photo I.D.s too much?  This article by Sturken and Cartwright suggests that may be the case.  After all, people are able to purchase fake identification if they want.  I.D.s can be reproduced.  Identities can be stolen.  Our photo I.D.s are easily the most prominently used identification methods in day to day life, whether it is for work, school, security, purchases, or driving.

Another aspect of the article that I found particularly interesting was the section regarding photo manipulation.  Photographs are so often used for evidence in courtrooms, in magazines, in our personal lives, on social media – and yet, Photoshop, iPhoto, and even editing options on our cell phones allow us to alter images.  This seems problematic to me, not only from an identification standpoint, as I already mentioned, but from a self-image standpoint.  An understanding of what is and is not real.  Of what should and should not be used comparatively.

The two main questions that this article caused me to reflect upon most are first, whether or not it is problematic that our society depends on photo I.D.s too much.  With so much opportunity for digital reconstruction at the average person’s fingertips, surely technology is emerging for professionals that could make identities stolen or created more easily.  How could this affect society?  

My second question is about what this will do for body image, particularly for women.  How will girls who are growing up at this very moment be able to remain confident in a time when images can be so easily altered? Will young girls increasingly compare themselves to people (especially models) who do not even exist?  I'm reminded of the Dove commercial that shows the inside scoop of an ordinary looking woman who receives a complete makeover, models for an advertisement, and then whose picture is digitally altered.  The end result is a woman who does not even exist.  It perfectly illustrates the realities of altering images.

P.S. Check out Dove's website here to view their social mission, beliefs about body image, and much more!