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?  

A Step in the Right Direction

Rowe’s article “Framed and Mounted: Sport Through the Photographic Eye” covers a wide variety of information regarding the area of sports photography.

The introduction of the article discusses the task of “unveiling” media sports photography – the characteristics of it, the propriety of it, the framing of it.  

Rowe says early on in the article that “still photography is . . . a form of communication that relies on the notion of ‘capture’ – frozen for all time is a gesture, an expression, incident, or landscape . . . . conducted like any other communicative act through processes of selection; many ‘snaps’ may be taken but only one shot [is] selected out of the multiple variations of angle, focus, composition, and light” (143).

I thought this quote was a marvelous representation of the true essence of what sports photography should be.  Rowe goes on to present many different examples of how sports photography is not as it should be, even arguing that it objectifies women.  Rowe cites an example of a dominant-looking male athlete standing next a submissive looking female athlete, and argues that the submissive stance of the female is objectifying.  Consider the images below from Vogue magazine, of Olympic hopefuls:

What do these images say about male athletes versus female athletes?  Why is Vogue magazine portraying gender roles this way?

I definitely do agree that Rowe presents some honest, realistic examples of the way females can be objectified by the media, particularly in terms of sports photography.  However, I also think that conversely, some media outlets do make attempts to show women as strong, athletic individuals.  The example that first comes to mind for me is the Nike commercial below.

Rowe certainly has a point when she asserts that the success of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue isn’t the result of the public’s sudden and short-lived interest in sports.  There is definitely media out there that is still objectifying women.  But I also think that companies like Nike are taking a step in the right direction.

My questions remain though - what do you think?  Is the sports journalism that you encounter day-to-day representing empowered, strong, female athletes?  Or is it seeking, in your opinion, to have women play a submissive role?  If the latter, how can we as consumers of the media, change this?  Either way, why do you think this is?  

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!