I felt that throughout the whole book the main point that she was trying to express was that photographs are a good way to show a expereince or a memory. They are used to show us things that maybe we are not able to expereience ourselves such as war. Or other times pictures can be used for more happy moment that we just want to remember. However, she appears to focus more on images that bring pain or maybe arent the peaceful.
The one thing that she does bring up that I thought was interesting was who are the ones taking these pictures. I guess that is something you dont really think of when you are looking at a picture. Well atlelast that something that I dont think of. The example that she uses in the book was when the atomic bombs were being dropped on Japan. She said that in the picture you could see the children running away from this bomb while you could see the debree is following behind them. Then she makes the point who is the one standing there taking this picture. I guess you could think, why is person here risking their life to take this picture? However, you seem to get the thought why is this person just standing there taking this picture rather then helping these children that are in danger?
The other example she uses is that there are picture of men at war that are in the middle ofombat. She states that there are image where the soilders are being shot at the moment and you could see them falling backwards as they are getting hit by a bullet. Now who would just stand there and watch someone lose their life for a picture. Could they be that heartless? or maybe it justs the way they capture what they call art? Well to me atleast I dont believe that watching someone lose their life is worth getting this picture. And to me it doesnt appear to be art. It more of a horrifying moment that I dont think should always be shown.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
research topic
The topic of my research paper is: Does corporations interfere in what the news tell us. After seeing the movie corporation and seeing the scandal with the new and Monsanto's, it made me think if there are any other stories just like it. Or is it just a one time thing? I mean its kind of scared to think that there is news out there being held from the public. And the only reason that we are not getting this info is because the news stations are losing money from these corporations.
While doing research I have found some other incidents that are similar. One was only a few years ago when CBS let go anchorman Dan Rather's. He later found out that he was let go because something he decided to say on the air and the corporation Viacom that affiliated with CBS didn't like it. There is also few other similar stories that I have came across.
However, when it comes to sources i am having some trouble. The main was ia m finding my stories is throught in internet. The main problem that I am having with sources is finding books on this and I am worried i wont find enough information. I dont think there is any book written specifically on it. Though it is somewhat of a difficult subject i think that it will come all together one way or another.
While doing research I have found some other incidents that are similar. One was only a few years ago when CBS let go anchorman Dan Rather's. He later found out that he was let go because something he decided to say on the air and the corporation Viacom that affiliated with CBS didn't like it. There is also few other similar stories that I have came across.
However, when it comes to sources i am having some trouble. The main was ia m finding my stories is throught in internet. The main problem that I am having with sources is finding books on this and I am worried i wont find enough information. I dont think there is any book written specifically on it. Though it is somewhat of a difficult subject i think that it will come all together one way or another.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
corporation/ no logo
I think that the movie corporations and no logos made a lot of the same points. The both pointed out that business are not all about the product but more about the brand. Both of them speared to not be very fond of that. However, the movie corporation did try to show the two different sides. It gave to some good points why corporations could be good but most were the negative.
I think that this movie and also the book no logos relates to the word culture. It shows somewhat was our culture has turned into, maybe not all of it but especially the business world and everything involved with it. For example, when they were showing the sweatshops and how we are sending our jobs overseas. These businesses rather make their products there where they don’t have to pay nearly nothing than keeping the jobs here and give our people jobs. It shows how they try to do everything at the cheapest way possible even if it hurting something else. This is defiantly part of the culture in today’s world.
When it comes to the word identity, that’s a big part of corporations. In one way all these businesses have an identity because of their brand. If many of them didn’t have a brand or their advertisement they wouldn’t be around or still running. For example, if you hear a word or saying such as “just do it” for most people you think of Nike. That right there gives them an identity.
I think that this movie and also the book no logos relates to the word culture. It shows somewhat was our culture has turned into, maybe not all of it but especially the business world and everything involved with it. For example, when they were showing the sweatshops and how we are sending our jobs overseas. These businesses rather make their products there where they don’t have to pay nearly nothing than keeping the jobs here and give our people jobs. It shows how they try to do everything at the cheapest way possible even if it hurting something else. This is defiantly part of the culture in today’s world.
When it comes to the word identity, that’s a big part of corporations. In one way all these businesses have an identity because of their brand. If many of them didn’t have a brand or their advertisement they wouldn’t be around or still running. For example, if you hear a word or saying such as “just do it” for most people you think of Nike. That right there gives them an identity.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
No logos
In the beginning of this book, Naomi Klein starts off saying that the new idea is that a successful corporation must primarily produce brands, rather than products. Earlier in the day it was more important to have a product to sell and that has completely change since the years has gone by. One of the main points that she brings up is that now a days corporations are more interested in their brands and their advertisement rather than their actual product.
One of the examples she brings up is Kraft. When Kraft was bought in 1988, the man that bought paid more than the actual business was worth on paper. However, it didn't appear that he was actually buying the product but the actual name Kraft. After this situation advertisement became even bigger and other corporations were doing the same, putting more money into their brands.
The harm in this could be that they spending more money on that then their product, which can overall end up hurting them. Also with all there money going to this brand then they have to raise the price on their products and that is not something that all ways works out. The one example that she gives is Marlboro, that had to drop their prices to compete with the bargain cigarettes.
The other big thing that corporations are doing to cheaper their product is sending their work over seas. With this people are finding out that some of their favorite brands are being made in sweat shops and unfair labor places. She talks about that this making some people lash out against brands, such as covering their name or destroying their advertisements. I guess that it just show that some of these decision they are making don't always make their brand look that good.
One of the examples she brings up is Kraft. When Kraft was bought in 1988, the man that bought paid more than the actual business was worth on paper. However, it didn't appear that he was actually buying the product but the actual name Kraft. After this situation advertisement became even bigger and other corporations were doing the same, putting more money into their brands.
The harm in this could be that they spending more money on that then their product, which can overall end up hurting them. Also with all there money going to this brand then they have to raise the price on their products and that is not something that all ways works out. The one example that she gives is Marlboro, that had to drop their prices to compete with the bargain cigarettes.
The other big thing that corporations are doing to cheaper their product is sending their work over seas. With this people are finding out that some of their favorite brands are being made in sweat shops and unfair labor places. She talks about that this making some people lash out against brands, such as covering their name or destroying their advertisements. I guess that it just show that some of these decision they are making don't always make their brand look that good.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
ohman and Adorno/Horkeimer
When reading the two articles; Selling Cultures and Culture Industry, I thought that they were going to be very alike. However, they seem to more different than similar. In selling culture, Ohman was straight to the point and had support to his arguments. On the other hand with Culture Industry, I thought the author seem to just ramble on to finally getting to a point, which was sort of hard to read.
The main points that both of the readings brought up were advertisement. Ohman appears to be in favor of it. The best example of that is when he says he agrees to the study of Alfed Chandler, which says that advertisement had led to the flow of manufacturing which had helped in the structure of a modern corporation. The other main point that he brings up about advertising is all success's it has had, such as James Buchanan Duke and his cigarettes, with advertising he went from producing 240,000 cigarettes a day to 2.3 million.
On the other hand there Adorno/Horkeimer that seem to have different feelings. They seem not to be against just the advertisement industry but the whole entertainment industry has a whole. They say "real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies.....leaves no room for imagination or reflection ". The different things they say make you believe that people cant really think for themselves or have an imagination for themselves. I think that it bring it right back to advertising in which they have a hold on you and you don't always think for yourself.
The main points that both of the readings brought up were advertisement. Ohman appears to be in favor of it. The best example of that is when he says he agrees to the study of Alfed Chandler, which says that advertisement had led to the flow of manufacturing which had helped in the structure of a modern corporation. The other main point that he brings up about advertising is all success's it has had, such as James Buchanan Duke and his cigarettes, with advertising he went from producing 240,000 cigarettes a day to 2.3 million.
On the other hand there Adorno/Horkeimer that seem to have different feelings. They seem not to be against just the advertisement industry but the whole entertainment industry has a whole. They say "real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies.....leaves no room for imagination or reflection ". The different things they say make you believe that people cant really think for themselves or have an imagination for themselves. I think that it bring it right back to advertising in which they have a hold on you and you don't always think for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)