Response to Baudrillard

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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 Idea of Pure Image

After watching the documentary on Shelby Lee Adam’s photographs of the Appalachian people, I was really compelled on the differencing of opinions. One said that adding too much style takes away from the purity of image while the other professed that an image no matter how you look at is true, stylized or not. For class we also had to read Bryson’s article “The Natural Attitude”, which offered a very interesting idea of what an image can and should represent. Personally, I tend to side with the ideal that no matter what an image is, it will always carry some kind of connotation or style behind it so therefore it will never be completely pure but it does bare some truth.
As a student, I’ve heard the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words” multiple times from teachers. This phrase plays perfectly into the idea that an image/picture will never be completely true; it will always have some sort of meaning. An artist or photographer cannot realistically hold back someone else’s or even their own interpretation of an image or painting. Bryson comments on this in his article “The struggle towards perfection is recognized as long and arduous: the Essential Copy, if it were ever achieved, would possess no stylistic features, since the simulacrum would at last have purged away all traces of the productive process” (pg 27). This struggle for perfection that Bryson’s discussed prevents an image from being without objectivity, actually in his vision an image becomes more subject as it is created.
In regards to the documentary, Shelby Adam’s images portrayed the truth even though they were stylized to a point. Adam’s views of his photos were respectful and elegant to a way while his opposition viewed it as a way to further the negative stereotypes. I believe that Adam did nothing wrong in his photographs, the Appalachian people were portrayed how they are. It was not Adam’s intention to portray them in a negative way but to portray a truth to a sense of who they were. The negative connotations were not of Adam’s own mindset but more so dependent on the audience.
Finally, going back to the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words”, there is no way to think of every different meaning of a picture. No matter how a picture/ image are created there will always be some difference of interpretation. We don’t question an image of Martin Luther King Jr. professing his need of freedom for African Americans as powerful and inspirational but, we question the authenticity of an image that pictures the Appalachian people being proud and humble people? Both of these images carry meaning and should be considered truthful to a point. The key phrase in this sentence is “ To a point” an image will never be a perfect copy or replication of the subject but still should be accepted.

Response to Bryson's "The natural attitude"

Bryson writes about how "the ancient tale sees painting as faced with a task of enormous magnitude: it is to depict everything - gods, men, beasts, things; 'groves, woods, forests, hills, fish-pools, conduits, and drains, riverets, with their banks, and whatsoever a man would wish to see.' The problem lies in the task - its performance, its infinity of possible subject matter, its manual difficulty - but not in the means by which the task is to be performed. Painting itself has no problematic. The difficulties confronted by the painter are executive and concern the fidelity of his registration of the world before him...resurrect exists out there..." (25). I found this to be one of the most powerful passages from Bryson's text. It shows that in the past, painting was viewed as having a huge effect on people and what they could see, using imagination or thoughts that came from within to paint for the audience.
There is so much that could be painted and some artists I think painted from what came from within them, what God helped them to see. Others painted things that were new and exciting. Bryson thinks that an image is substituted for the real. This means that an image doesn't necessarily reflect reality; art is an abstract of Reality. Using lots of colors or adding more to a painting than what you see just adds an "awe" factor for those who look at it. It is an expression of more than what is actually being said and there is nothing wrong with that.
Even though he states the dominant aim of the image is the natural attitude, sometimes when you look at a painting or a photograph, there is nothing natural about it. I take pictures and when I do, I try to capture people doing what they do, but once someone knows there is a camera, they pose or try to look "cool" and not stupid when other people could see these later. The goal is to try to capture everything in it's "real form" and natural state, but sometimes it is impossible. When an artist draws something, it is set up for them or they add their own spin to their work so it can be recognized. This is the abstract of Reality and I understand it very well.

Response to Barthes

Being in the fast pace society of today, we are constantly bombarded by advertisements and other images by the media. It is our job as the viewer to digest each one of the messages and decide how we really feel about them. In “The Rhetoric of Image” by Roland Barthes, Barthes discussed how we as the audience go through our processes to break down these images. He broke down an image into three main parts: linguistic, coded iconic and finally non-coded iconic. Linguistic refers to the text attached to an image commonly used in captions. Coded iconic is the idea that each image has as cultural interpretation, this I commonly where the hidden message are developed. Finally, there is non-coded iconic images which are images that are what they are with no hidden messages or attached meanings.

Personally, Barthe’s ideas that each image has linguistic value, coded iconic and non-coded processes really spoke to me. Like I stated above, our society is so fast paced that it is almost impossible to not encounter some sort of image or advertisement in a day. Going into public relations/marketing it will be my job in the future to produce these images. I will eventually have to provoke some sort of response by an audience using these three concepts. I actually have a lot of fun breaking down an ad and trying to determine the hidden meanings behind it all. The funny thing is you can do it with almost any image, especially advertisements. Barthes’ made a good point about these hidden messages by saying, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in pure state” (38). I completely agree with this statement, it’s rare to find an advertisement without some sort of hidden meaning. This isn’t a bad thing either; it challenges us as consumers of an image to basically ask why did the producer use this and what are the hidden meanings. It actually makes us better consumers when we are able to interpret and find what is really being said in the image.

In conclusion, Barthes ideas behind the meaning of many images presented to us in our everyday life is really interesting. The idea the each image can be divided or more so defined by linguistic meanings, coded and non-coded iconic meanings really helps to understand some of the ideas and reasoning why some images are created.

While reading "Rhetoric of the Image" by Roland Barthes, we learn that every image is a re-presentation of something that already exists. Barthes even argues that some people believe that images come nowhere as close to conveying an image as actual language can do. However, for some reason, we see many images today, both familiar and unfamiliar, that we can derive meaning from.

Barthes goes on to explain that every image can convey meaning to us in three different ways: linguistic, coded iconic messages, and non-coded iconic messages.

Linguistic meanings come from things such as captions on the actual image of even just text on the labels of the things being presented in the image. Like Barthes says, these captions of words included in the images are important because they convey meanings or explain things the actual image might not represent to us. For example, in the Panzani advertisement for Italian food, we read words written in French, which signals that this is not American cuisine (34).

The coded iconic messages refer to the actual image itself. For example, in the Panzani ad we see images of noodles, tomatoes, peppers, sauces and so on. We see colors we consider to be indicative of Italy. Therefore, we image ourselves shopping for fresh produce in a market in Italy where we might be preparing a meal for our family. Because the images are somewhat familiar to us, we can draw other conclusions not soley based on what we see.

Finally, non-coded iconic messages represent a sort of "it is what it is" mentality. We see the same noodles, tomatoes, peppers and so on and think "oh, that is an image of noodles, tomatoes, and peppers coming out of a bag". There is no other meaning other than what we actually see (34).

It is definitely important to be aware of how we derive meaning form the images we see, becuase we hundreds of images every day. If we were driving down the highway looking at billboards without text, we might never get any meaning out of any of them. It is interesting to consider how important the details are in images, because one minor mistake could send the viewer in the wrong direction and the purpose of the image would have failed.

Rhetoric of the Image

In Roland Barthes’ essay Rhetoric of the Image, the way in which we see and interpret images are broken down into three parts: linguistic, coded iconic, and non-coded iconic. Barthes breaks images down in this way, defining linguistic as the text attached to the image, the coded iconic as the cultural interpretation of the image, and the non-coded iconic as the image itself with no meanings attached. However, Barthes argues that people recognize the coded and non-coded iconic forms of images at the same time, making the latter of the two impossible.
According to Barthes, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in a pure state. Even if a totally ‘naïve’ image were to be achieved, it would immediately join the sign of naivety and be completed by a third—symbolic—message. Thus the characteristics of all literal messages cannot be substantial but only relational” (pg 38). I agree with Barthes and would go so far as to say that we never see an image in a pure state, no matter if it’s in advertising or in daily life. Everything that we see has some sort of meaning attached to it. Just walking down the street, people are reading each other in a connotative manner. Being tall, short, fat, skinny, a male, or a female all has some sort of connotative meaning that people immediately think of. Rather than seeing a physically fit man standing on the sidewalk wearing a suit, someone is more likely to see a successful business man who is probably smart, wealthy, and works out. It is human nature to want to know about a person and be able to fit that person into a certain category, and society gives us the tools to do just that.
Even if a person were on a secluded beach watching the sun set, she wouldn’t only see the sun setting for what it is, but she would attach other meanings to it. Beauty, serenity, the end of a day, relaxation—all of these words and feelings would overtake her. But even though these words are all attached to a sunset, they really have nothing to do with the sunset itself. Literally, a sunset results from the earth’s rotation. It has nothing to do with beauty or serenity; it’s just a natural event that happens every day. But humans have a tendency to give everything meaning or something to be associated with, and these associations stick and become second nature. It is for this reason that Barthes is correct—we can never encounter a literal image in a pure state. By instinct, people will always add a connotative meaning.

Response to Barthes' "Rhetoric of the Image"

Barthes talks about the image and how "...the image is felt to be weak in the respect of meaning: there are those who think that the image is an extremely rudimentary system in comparison with language and those who think that signification cannot exhaust the image's ineffable richness."
A photograph should offer us three messages: a linguistic message, a coded iconic message, and a non-coded iconic message. The linguistic message refers to the words in or around an image that help to explain the photograph one is looking at. Barthes says that in today's society, it seems every image is presented with a text to explain a photograph; this could be a title or a caption. I would completely agree with this. I've taken photography classes for the last 3 years and in every critique I've had, the professor has asked me to name a photo or series of photos to describe something about them. I never think to do that as I'm taking the pictures or even how they all fit together until after they are finished in photoshop and in front of me. I feel like things could be interpreted the wrong way without a title or explanation with it, hence artist statements, but at the same time I do think that an image speaks volumes on its own. There shouldn't need to be a caption unless the "artist" wants to convey a specific message. I like the idea of people getting what they want out of a photo and seeing something different than the person who looks at it after them. In news and advertisements, I agree that photos should be presented with text, but not when it comes to art, but that is because you only want to convey one message.
He makes references to the literal image and the symbolic image when it comes to advertising. I would consider the literal image to be that one message you get because of your experiences and the symbolic one to be taken any way, or more than one way, as you look at it. I agree that everything is constructed. You may not think about how it is when you take a picture, but there is meaning behind why you took that picture and why you stood in that spot, at that angle and chose to take it at that moment. Culture is a huge part of what happens when an image is constructed. There are certain things you can do and cannot, even as you try to do something no one has ever done before. You must start with the trend before you move on to something new. Ideas are created by our experiences in culture.

In Response to Poster

After reading Poster's, "Authors Analogue and Digital", I found that I appreciated his objectivity to both analogue forms of mediums(print) and digital(for example:blogs). We live in a culture that the mediums are rapdily tranistioning from analogue forms such as books to the everday evolving form of digital media like websights. Postor does a great job describing both the postives and negatives of traditional analogue and the digital revolution mediums

Poster pointed out some of the relativly simple but key argumens about why analogue should still be used as a primary medium. Within his piece, he made a point to talk about stablitly and accessaiblity of media like books and newspapers in comparison. Society still and will continue to rely on this very basic and simple concept of printed media because it will always be there. The finalization of print media being released into the general public is on of the it's greatest assets. Unlike digital, which can be changed at any second, print is sold and doesn't change as fast. Not only are books always going to be aroudn, they are widely more accessible to the public than the internet. The idea that anyone can go to the library and get a book, take it home and read is one thing the digital revolution cannot offer everyone. These few advantages have continued to keep analogue at the very basic medium level.

As stated above, digital mediums are forming a new wave of how many of our basic types of media are pushed out to society. Poster made the argument taht digital allows flexabilit in terms of when or who can write,read and publish their own work. Digial allows an open door to everyone to put whatever they want on the web whenever they want. Unlike pring, the words of this medium are not set in stone but are able to change on a moments notice. Poster pointed out that this ability to change and evolve whenever it wants has some positives and negaitves

Creating the Grid

Before considering “breaking the grid,” we should look at why the grid was created in the first place. After all, the invisible grid on which we write and from which we read has been around for centuries, implying that it’s been working well so far.


According to John Lock, ideas come from experiences, more specifically broken up in to sensation and reflection. In a portion of one of Lock’s essays titled “Of Ideas” he states, “Let anyone examine his own thoughts, and thoroughly search into his understanding, and then let him tell me, whether all the original ideas he has there, are any other than of the objects of his senses, or of the operations of his mind considered as objects of his reflection” (187). While sensations are objective, reflection is important when it comes to learning and sharing ideas with others. It is for this reason that critical thinkers of The Enlightenment decided that publications should be clear, objective, transparent, and universal. Since the point of publishing is to put ideas into words to be shared with others, shouldn’t the way these words are formatted be easy to understand? Writers want others to have the ability to access their works and learn from them, or at least have them spark a conversation. This can only happen if ideas are published in a clear-cut fashion which is easily understood by a wide variety of people. It is for this reason that the grid has been working so well for so many centuries; people can access and understand information easily.

Those against the grid may be wondering who decides on how it is formed. Fellow Enlightenment thinker David Hume touches upon this issue in his essay “Of the Standard of Taste.” Hume acknowledges that thoughts and sensations are objective; not everyone sees the world in the same way. He claims that sensation only “…marks a certain conformity or the relation between the object and the organs or faculties of the mind; and if that conformity did not really exist, the sentiment could never possibly have being” (507). Conformity is necessary for the world to function as it does. Basically, if the formation of grid works for a majority of people, the rest must conform so that it stays universal. Although “conformity” is often seen as an evil word, people conform all the time. Elvis Presley is the king of rock and roll; Marilyn Monroe is a sex icon. Why? Because a majority of people felt this way, and many more conformed to holding Elvis as a high standard in music and Monroe as a high standard in sex appeal. While not everyone agrees with these statements, they are forced to deal with the fact that the standards were set. The same can be said about the formation of the grid. Anyone who doesn’t like it must either deal with it or start a movement.

Blog 1 - Marx Response

In response to "Preface" by Karl Marx, I think he is a bit confusing in how he describes social production. He believes we are born into certain situations, in relation to history and beliefs of certain cultures regardless of if this situation is what we want it to be. As an example, I am growing up in a more digital age where computers are becoming even more utilized than ever before: professors are relying on D2L to hold readings and collect papers of students, cell phones have the internet, almost every student on campus has a laptop, etc. We are in the digital age where more and more inventions are surfacing that is "cool" and cuts back on paper, such as e-books, and it's not because we want to go more green and save the trees. It is because it is what is popular and engages people more. I would have loved to be growing up in a time, maybe 20 years ago when there weren't all these new technological developments being marketed.
As a consequence, or effect, of this (growing up in my generation, or now), we are who we are, according to Marx. In other words, we are effects of our society we live in, or our culture. Marx mentions the idea of the "superstructure." It appears there is a legal and political superstructure due to the economic structure of society. He also states "men enter into definite relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production," constituting the real foundation. When he talks about the real foundation, he is referring to the superstructure formed in society. Branches of "superstructure" are linked to education, politics, culture, art. In all societies, conditions must exist for these things to be present in order for growth of our cultures. It seems almost as if he is saying that the economy, and in some cases, the government, determines how a society is structured in every way, including print.
Marx mentions their is a conflict between the social forces of production and the relations of production. Both are needed for a society to function. Structure is needed. Productive forces must be developed, meaning material life. He continued to mention a "bourgeois society." I take that as a society with meaning, education, politics, art, etc. is a rich society. However, he realizes there are standards and decisions were made about how society should be structured. As mentioned above, we can't choose when we grow up, society is already formed and organized to a specific structure.