While reading Baudrillard’s essays, I began to get a sense that the difference between the realities that advertising presented is very different from the actual. Every day the American public is bombarded by advertisements the proclaim they have the answer to make life; easier, faster, bigger and well just better but those common promises fail most of the time. Baudrillard called this fake reality a type of hyper-reality; this reality is an exacerbated view of what is really there. In one of his essays, Baudrillard found that the public pursues this hyper reality in order to get away from the truth, he used families that go to resorts like Disneyland as an example.
Like I said above, advertisements commonly offer promises that they cannot keep. For example, AXE body spray portray an image to a young male that if they wear their product females will be all over them almost to the point that it will just seem natural. This is far from the truth, I have tried AXE and not once have I got jumped on by a hoard of excited girls. Instead of thinking the cologne developed by AXE is no different from any other; males have this idea that it will help them become the quintessential “Chick magnet”. Now this saying, our society always is looking for that one product that could change our life forever. This search is an example of Baudrillard’s idea of hyper-reality at work and it doesn’t just stop here. This idea is used throughout the advertising industry.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Looking at the NFL .com layout
For years I have been an avid NFL fan, particularly the Green Bay Packers. When the assignment came to look at a general design of a website NFL.com came to mind. NFL.com helps to basically present all of the upcoming news throughout the league which means I find myself visiting daily. After reviewing each concept design I found that the homepage consisted of both an “ideal to real” theme while also having much of the tree design too.
The “idea to real” layout goes from top most general to lower. This layout is predominantly a top down structure which means that the most important information (i.e. breaking news) is very close to top of the website. NFL’s website starts off with the general logo placement and tabs but then goes directly into a box that runs through all of the late breaking news. This is then followed by more of the general information that may not be as current.
Another design that I found in NFL’s website was the idea of the tree design. Much like the “Ideal to Real” structure it is built off the top-down structure. This is structural design in seen on the page again by the logo being on top and then breaking down into other subjects. Unlike the “ideal to real”, the tree design allows the website to go to general to more area oriented material. The website starts out with current and then branches off into subjects like analyze/opinion pieces and video. This allows the viewer to pick their selection for more of what they are looking for.
To summarize, it was interesting to see that NFL’s website presented two different designs. By having both structural ideas on the website it allows different types of audience’s direct access to their favorite material.
The “idea to real” layout goes from top most general to lower. This layout is predominantly a top down structure which means that the most important information (i.e. breaking news) is very close to top of the website. NFL’s website starts off with the general logo placement and tabs but then goes directly into a box that runs through all of the late breaking news. This is then followed by more of the general information that may not be as current.
Another design that I found in NFL’s website was the idea of the tree design. Much like the “Ideal to Real” structure it is built off the top-down structure. This is structural design in seen on the page again by the logo being on top and then breaking down into other subjects. Unlike the “ideal to real”, the tree design allows the website to go to general to more area oriented material. The website starts out with current and then branches off into subjects like analyze/opinion pieces and video. This allows the viewer to pick their selection for more of what they are looking for.
To summarize, it was interesting to see that NFL’s website presented two different designs. By having both structural ideas on the website it allows different types of audience’s direct access to their favorite material.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Web site analysis
After looking at a few Web sites, I decided that NBC’s specific Web site for their show “The Office” would be an interesting one to analyze.
Like most Web sites I looked at, the Web site for “The Office” has an ideal and real type of construction. At the very top of the page NBC has specific links for their general Web site, and beneath that there is a row of links to click on specifically for “The Office.” However, after this the Web site’s structure becomes more of a network. The page is meant to look as though the viewer is looking at a bulletin board, and there are a lot of random items posted on this board.
Games, trivia, tweets from the stars and a link to an apparel store all randomly appear on this Web site. While for the most part the page is random, it does somewhat follow the given and new format. The left-hand side contains the categories “latest videos” and “latest episode,” which are both categories that a majority of people who enter the Web site link to. This is given information, or information within categories that viewers are familiar with, while other categories such as games and tweets are likely new to people who don’t visit the Web site often.
While the network construction of the Web site is a little messy, I believe that it fits the theme of the site. The page is supposed to look like a bulletin board someone would see in an office, and bulletin boards are not usually organized. Also, “The Office” is a fun show, and the lack of order and types of categories (games, trivia) make the Web site more fun and interactive. Despite the disarrayed look, the Web site is still pleasing to the eye. The information is not too cluttered; the designers used an adequate amount of white space. Overall, the design of the Web site fits its purpose as a fun page for fans of the show.
Like most Web sites I looked at, the Web site for “The Office” has an ideal and real type of construction. At the very top of the page NBC has specific links for their general Web site, and beneath that there is a row of links to click on specifically for “The Office.” However, after this the Web site’s structure becomes more of a network. The page is meant to look as though the viewer is looking at a bulletin board, and there are a lot of random items posted on this board.
Games, trivia, tweets from the stars and a link to an apparel store all randomly appear on this Web site. While for the most part the page is random, it does somewhat follow the given and new format. The left-hand side contains the categories “latest videos” and “latest episode,” which are both categories that a majority of people who enter the Web site link to. This is given information, or information within categories that viewers are familiar with, while other categories such as games and tweets are likely new to people who don’t visit the Web site often.
While the network construction of the Web site is a little messy, I believe that it fits the theme of the site. The page is supposed to look like a bulletin board someone would see in an office, and bulletin boards are not usually organized. Also, “The Office” is a fun show, and the lack of order and types of categories (games, trivia) make the Web site more fun and interactive. Despite the disarrayed look, the Web site is still pleasing to the eye. The information is not too cluttered; the designers used an adequate amount of white space. Overall, the design of the Web site fits its purpose as a fun page for fans of the show.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Website Elements
I looked at a few websites, and finally landed on the National Geographic Website. I would say that there is a tree type of element, however there is also a top-down structure that is evident. The tree element comes into play when the title "National Geographic" is at the top of the page in the left corner, but very present. As your eye moves to the next line on the web page, you see the tool bar, which have links you can click on that take you to the various subject headings found on the website. The information is broken down on the main page, with smaller headings such as "Editor's Pick" and "Featured Videos."
In addition to the tree format, as your eyes move down the page, you go up-down, however in most of the lines, there are headings that go across the page in an almost given and new format, displaying the left-right design elements. Being that it is a news-related website, the news is always changing which means that it is hard to display old with the new. The content is always changing while the format stays the same and the titles never change on the top of the page. There is always a big video slide show playing when you open the website, causing your eyes to look there first and maybe find more stories that are of interest to them.
There is a smaller side bar that seems less important only because the pictures and words are smaller than the rest of the section headings mentioned in the middle and the column to the right once you get a little further down.
I think this is a good use of design elements. It is almost as if you're reading an actual newspaper, maybe not so much a magazine, which National Geographic actually is in print. There are links to the stories under the different headings that will help you to navigate exactly what you want to read and where you want to go. You can go back after entering a link fairly easy, making the design user-friendly. It is also appealing with the yellow markers in front of the subject headings so you know what they are in a simple way that doesn't involved bolding them.
In addition to the tree format, as your eyes move down the page, you go up-down, however in most of the lines, there are headings that go across the page in an almost given and new format, displaying the left-right design elements. Being that it is a news-related website, the news is always changing which means that it is hard to display old with the new. The content is always changing while the format stays the same and the titles never change on the top of the page. There is always a big video slide show playing when you open the website, causing your eyes to look there first and maybe find more stories that are of interest to them.
There is a smaller side bar that seems less important only because the pictures and words are smaller than the rest of the section headings mentioned in the middle and the column to the right once you get a little further down.
I think this is a good use of design elements. It is almost as if you're reading an actual newspaper, maybe not so much a magazine, which National Geographic actually is in print. There are links to the stories under the different headings that will help you to navigate exactly what you want to read and where you want to go. You can go back after entering a link fairly easy, making the design user-friendly. It is also appealing with the yellow markers in front of the subject headings so you know what they are in a simple way that doesn't involved bolding them.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Foucault and the Panopticon
Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon was originally created to make prisoners behave as though they are constantly under surveillance. But to Michel Foucault, “The Panopticon must not be understood as a dream building: it is the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form… it is in fact a figure of political technology that may and must be detached from any specific use” (68). While an establishment designed to make prisoners feel as though they are under constant supervision sounds like a good idea, this genius concept isn’t favored by Foucault when it is used in everyday life. Foucault ends his essay on Panopticism by posing the question, “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?” (70). The Panopticon only magnifies the fact that society is divided into two groups: the watcher and the watched. This division of society can be seen in nearly all institutions. Schools, hospitals and businesses all function based on the notion that you are under supervision and therefore must behave at all times.
However, in decade run by You Tube and Facebook it is sometimes hard to believe that people don’t like being watched. You Tube is home to millions of moments of stupidity and absurdity caught on film, and Facebook displays millions of pictures and thoughts for the world to see. I think it is safe to say that some people love attention and wish their entire lives could be viewed by the world. So then what is the difference between Bentham’s Panopticon and uploading your life onto You Tube? I believe that two main factors come into play here: the fear of consequence and the ability to choose when to be seen. In classrooms and at work, when we are watched we know that our actions have a chance of receiving consequences. In these settings when we act as though we are being watched, we are behaving carefully so that we do not get into trouble. But when we post videos or pictures for people to view on the Internet, we are expecting to get a reaction, not receive a consequence. While filming a You Tube video or posing for a picture that will knowingly appear on Facebook, most people aren’t thinking, “I hope this doesn’t get me into trouble.” Most people think more along the lines of, “I hope people will think this is funny.” Besides not fearing consequence, with You Tube and Facebook, people can choose when they are seen and what they are seen doing. Being under constant surveillance can be tiring, as people don’t feel free to fully act as themselves. No one wants to be caught doing something unethical or stupid. But when people post images or videos online, they are only seen doing something that they want to be seen doing. The attention received is welcomed rather than feared. So although today’s society seems to love being watched, if people weren’t in control of what part of their lives were made public, the concept of being watched would change drastically.
However, in decade run by You Tube and Facebook it is sometimes hard to believe that people don’t like being watched. You Tube is home to millions of moments of stupidity and absurdity caught on film, and Facebook displays millions of pictures and thoughts for the world to see. I think it is safe to say that some people love attention and wish their entire lives could be viewed by the world. So then what is the difference between Bentham’s Panopticon and uploading your life onto You Tube? I believe that two main factors come into play here: the fear of consequence and the ability to choose when to be seen. In classrooms and at work, when we are watched we know that our actions have a chance of receiving consequences. In these settings when we act as though we are being watched, we are behaving carefully so that we do not get into trouble. But when we post videos or pictures for people to view on the Internet, we are expecting to get a reaction, not receive a consequence. While filming a You Tube video or posing for a picture that will knowingly appear on Facebook, most people aren’t thinking, “I hope this doesn’t get me into trouble.” Most people think more along the lines of, “I hope people will think this is funny.” Besides not fearing consequence, with You Tube and Facebook, people can choose when they are seen and what they are seen doing. Being under constant surveillance can be tiring, as people don’t feel free to fully act as themselves. No one wants to be caught doing something unethical or stupid. But when people post images or videos online, they are only seen doing something that they want to be seen doing. The attention received is welcomed rather than feared. So although today’s society seems to love being watched, if people weren’t in control of what part of their lives were made public, the concept of being watched would change drastically.
"The Long Zoom"
In Steven Johnson's article "The Long Zoom" he starts out by defining what the long zoom actually is. It is a point of view, so to speak, or a way of viewing that we are familiar with. It is understanding the basic parts of something so that we can put them together to understand the whole thing.
Johnson, for example, uses the idea of starting in outerspace and traveling all the way forward until we can link it to the DNA in a person's body. It has become a relevant idea for this generation, allowing us to make connections like that while being able to see them through various forms of media.
Johnson focuses the article on game-creator Will Wright (creator of the Sims and SimCity). Wright is working on a game called Spore which would allow players to create and colonize their own planet. Like the Sims, it will be complex, allowing playes to get an idea of things like food chains and ecosystems. The game seems to be all about balance. Of his game, Wright says, " What you are doing in Spore is layer by layer creating an entire world that at the end of the day is entirely yours."
So what's the big deal, you ask? Players would get to play a game that challenges them but also shows them how these delicate balances in things like atmosphere work. Johnson sayys in Spore you get to create everything: "cell, creature, tribe, city, civilization, and space." If anyone can make a game about accurately sustaining a new planet, it's Will Wright.
Johnson, for example, uses the idea of starting in outerspace and traveling all the way forward until we can link it to the DNA in a person's body. It has become a relevant idea for this generation, allowing us to make connections like that while being able to see them through various forms of media.
Johnson focuses the article on game-creator Will Wright (creator of the Sims and SimCity). Wright is working on a game called Spore which would allow players to create and colonize their own planet. Like the Sims, it will be complex, allowing playes to get an idea of things like food chains and ecosystems. The game seems to be all about balance. Of his game, Wright says, " What you are doing in Spore is layer by layer creating an entire world that at the end of the day is entirely yours."
So what's the big deal, you ask? Players would get to play a game that challenges them but also shows them how these delicate balances in things like atmosphere work. Johnson sayys in Spore you get to create everything: "cell, creature, tribe, city, civilization, and space." If anyone can make a game about accurately sustaining a new planet, it's Will Wright.
Baudrillard Response
The definition of real is “that of which it is possible to give an equivalent reproduction,” and taking that further, “that which is always already reproduced” is hyperreal. Baudrillard says that hyperrealism is a limitation. He goes on to say that reality doesn’t even really exist anymore; it’s dead. Now there is the principle of simulation that creates only the appearance of reality and not reality at all. I would say that reality is still a big part of our society though. We like to read fiction and watch movies that are not depictions of reality, created for the audience’s viewing pleasure. I don’t know, we also like to fantasize and imagine things because when it comes down to it, yes, reality can suck.
“The real is produced from miniaturized units, from matrices, memory banks and command models—and with these it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times. It no longer has to be rational, since it is no longer measured against some ideal or negative instance. It is nothing more than operational…no longer real at all.” Baudrillard talks about substituting signs of real for the real itself. This goes along with the use of mechanisms that are programmatic, such as Photoshop or GIMP when referring to images. It makes me think about when I use programs such as this after taking a photo that I am no longer keeping it “real.” If it was originally in color and I change it to black and white and mess with the contrast, I’m changing the image to be something different, something mechanical or imaginary. But, this doesn’t mean that the real doesn’t need to be reproduced. Photographers try to capture what is “real” when they take an image, much like in the documentary we watched.
I do think that the world of digital media and such has become more popular and is starting to infringe on our reality. That is what I believe the Disneyland reference he mentioned relates to: an imaginary world in our real world. And it is a very popular place for people to go. I guess it is not surprising that people really want to escape their “reality” though for a while, but I appreciate the real things in life that can happen, however, society may not always agree. This just reminds me of the Dove Campaigns too and how they create a beautiful image from a “regular girl.” How do we know what is real anymore?
“The real is produced from miniaturized units, from matrices, memory banks and command models—and with these it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times. It no longer has to be rational, since it is no longer measured against some ideal or negative instance. It is nothing more than operational…no longer real at all.” Baudrillard talks about substituting signs of real for the real itself. This goes along with the use of mechanisms that are programmatic, such as Photoshop or GIMP when referring to images. It makes me think about when I use programs such as this after taking a photo that I am no longer keeping it “real.” If it was originally in color and I change it to black and white and mess with the contrast, I’m changing the image to be something different, something mechanical or imaginary. But, this doesn’t mean that the real doesn’t need to be reproduced. Photographers try to capture what is “real” when they take an image, much like in the documentary we watched.
I do think that the world of digital media and such has become more popular and is starting to infringe on our reality. That is what I believe the Disneyland reference he mentioned relates to: an imaginary world in our real world. And it is a very popular place for people to go. I guess it is not surprising that people really want to escape their “reality” though for a while, but I appreciate the real things in life that can happen, however, society may not always agree. This just reminds me of the Dove Campaigns too and how they create a beautiful image from a “regular girl.” How do we know what is real anymore?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)