New Media Theory - The Empowered User

Text

I looked at the idea of the user of the relationship of power between the technology and it's user, specifically the internet. I used pages 22-24 of the book "The Body and The Screen: Theories of Internet Spectatorship", by Michele White (2006).

Alain J-J. Cohen

The spectator of the internet has now been replaced with a "hyper-spectator", who, using their ability to create their own numerous online identities, can view the internet and its content from infinite positions.

New technologies reconfigure peoples thoughts on their current online identity, which allows them to constantly be escaping their real world identities, which is held back by things such as age, gender and race. Online this doesn't exist, you can be who you want to be, or at least who you think the internet wants you to be.

The idea of using verbs in relation to the doing things online gives us the idea that we have some physical power over the internet. A good example of this is the use of the term "surfing" when referring to using the internet, as this makes us think of the ease of which a surfer can negotiate waves, which in turn makes us think we have that sort of ease and power when negotiating the internet.

Justine Cassell and Harry Jenkins

From a young age it is innately suggested that technology is more of a male thing than a female thing, despite studies showing that women use the internet more than men. This is because we associate womens interaction with the internet with shopping and instant messaging etc, whereas the stereotypical image of a computer program is a "fat middle-aged man", which suggests that men have the power over technology, whereas to women it's more of a novelty. 

The unbalanced nature of the programmer-user power balance makes us question or right to have or want control over our own technology, which shows in the blind way in which people upgrade their apple products, even if they're more than happy with their current one, they accept the programmers word that the new one is better.

Both these points will continue to be the case as long as society continues to be scared or confused about technology, as "women's and abjectly figured men's lack of control is contrasted with the programmers skill", and this is exemplified by the stereotypical story of a technophobe mistaking a CD-ROM try for a cup holder. This sort of issue very much reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons where Homer becomes the driver for the Springfields Monorail (Season 4, Episode 12).

Similarities and Differences

Whilst both theories imply some sort of balance of power between the spectator and the technology, Cohen's theory suggests that people are much happier to embrace and challenge this balance than Cassell and Jenkins' does, with Cohen suggesting that people want to master technology rather than submitting to it, which is what the latter theory seems to be suggesting. 

I also notice that both theories look upon the spectators from different points of view. Cohen looks at it in the sense that the spectator fully decides their own identity, whereas Cassell and Jenkins look it in the sense that the spectator is using their real world identities. This is why the the theories differ in my opinion, as the spectator that appreciates their ability to chose their own identity has a basic understanding of technology anyway, which explains their willingness to want to master it. This is in direct contrast to someone who approaches technology from the point of view of their real world self.

Applications to Graphic Design

I suppose the biggest thing that should be taken from this is to understand your target market when doing digital design. These two theories suggest two extreme groups of people, the technology nerds and the technophobes. Whilst this isn't the be all and end all of peoples relationship with technology, it's important to understand your target markets relationship with technology, as this should inform your approach to communication through such things as wording and iconography. For example, it's no use using an envelope as a symbol for e-mail if your audience is an older generation who might see the use of an envelope more literally. In the same way it's probably not suggestible to use lots of specialist or unfamiliar terms, cache and cookies for example.

Cities and Film Lecture - My Thoughts

Like last week, I'm really not sure how relevant this lecture was to graphic design was, I feel that this one was very heavily based around photography, with some emphasis on art. 

I feel like it was somewhat useful being introduced to the idea of how people can be part of a "non-natural" system such a city, and I think that the concept of "if enough people start doing something for long enough, it's accepted" is something that could be applied to graphic design, but that's about it really.

In regards to the wider creative field, I think that the two black and white silent films that were partially shown in the lecture re-affirm my stance on photography and "film making", in that I really don't think it's very interesting at all. On a personal level, I'd much rather read about the stock market crash than be shown a 10 minute silent film on it, as I feel like it is much more informative, whereas I think the whole concept of "a picture paints a thousand words" is only really applicable to photos that are specifically taken of someone.

Lecture - Cities and Film

George Simmel, writer of Metropolis and Mental Life, theorised that the resistance of an individual is levelled and swallowed by the sociological mechanism that is a city.

Louis Sullivan was the architect that designed the Guaranty Building in New York, which was split into different sections to satisfy the needs of different sorts of people.  He's generally accredited as being the "inventor" of the Modern Day skyscraper. After a big fire in Chicago in 1871, Sullivan was asked to help in the redesigning and rebuilding of the town.

Antonio Gramsci theorised that the people working in the city were a part of the cities system, using the term "Fordism" to describe how workers for Ford were earning money only to buy a Ford and but the money back into the company that pays them. This was interpreted by Charlie Chaplin as the film "Modern Times" in 1936.

Study Task 1 - Interactive Identity Theories In Relation To ID, The Ego and The Super-Ego

Freud theorised that someones personality is split into three different systems, the ID, the ego, and the super-ego.

The ID is your natural instincts, meaning that your ID is a completely unconscious part of our personality in which we get no say in. It consists of the aspects of our personality that were passed onto us by our parents.  The ID is what dictates our emotions, reactions and desire to be happy. This is because every wishful thought we have comes from our ID.

The Ego is part of your ID that has broken off and has been influenced by your surroundings. The ego acts as some sort of negotiator between the surrounding world and your ID. The ego also has the desire to be happy, but appreciates that happiness can't be achieved in the way the ID wants to achieve it because of how society functions and the consequences it brings to people who seek happiness through the instincts of their ID. The Ego's idea of right and wrong is based solely on making the ID happy without consequences, a weak ego with often be overrun by a stronger and more passionate ID.

The Superego is your overruling system that implements societies rules and morals onto the ego and controls the frowned up impulses of the ID such as aggression. Essentially the Superego is fighting with the ID for control of the Ego. It is made up of the conscience and the ideal self. The conscience is the punishment system for your personality, it punishes the ego if it gives into to the ID's impulses by way of feelings of guilt. The ideal self is a persons vision of how they should be, this encompasses every aspect of their life. Fulfilling the ideal self is rewarded by the Superego with feelings of pride and happiness, whereas falling short of the ideal self will be punished with guilt. The standard of a persons ideal self is dependant mainly on their childhood and upbringing, if the standard is too high then everything the person does will be considered a failure, and visa versa.

The way I see it, the Superego is very much a characterised version of Stryker’s theory, whereas the ID is a characterised version of McCall and Simmons’ theory. 

McCall and Simmons’ theory suggests that your own validation is more important than validation from others, this essentially means that doing what you want to do is what makes you happy, which  draws similarities with the impulsive and instinctive nature of the ID. The theory also suggests that interaction between people is unstructured, which again reflects the impulsive and often erratic nature of the ID. It’s also interesting how this theory’s idea of a role identity is in no way influenced by societies actions and tendencies, which is also a present feature in what makes the ID happy.

Stryker’s theory on the other hand is supportive of the idea that our expectations of what our identity should be comes from others, which strongly links with the Superegos ideal self being drawn from the image of our parents and upbringing. The theory also suggests that the identity we show is influenced by our social surroundings, which is reflective of how the Superego withholds the ID and Ego through feelings of guilt. On top of this, the Superego reward the Ego and ID with feelings of happiness when it fulfils the image of the ideal self, which is dictated by external influences. This is very similar to how Stryker’s theory suggests that validation from others builds self-esteem, and from this, happiness.

This comparison leads to the conclusion that you can only ever be truly happy when your ID is happy, the idea of "you" is, in my opinion, defined by the ID. The Superego has the ability to trick the ego into thinking it's happy, but due to the instinctive nature of the ID, you'll always be able to feel if something isn't making you happy, even the smallest thing. At risk of turning my blog into an archive of episodes of the Simpsons, I think this is pretty well illustrated by Homer as Lisa tries to convince him not to take part in Springfield's traditional "Whacking Day" (Season 4, Episode 20).

Homer is caught between what is shown as "good" and "evil".

But of course happiness can only ever be achieved by following the "evil" instincts inside him.

Identity Lecture - My Thoughts

I had no idea what the relevance of this lecture was to graphic design, and honestly wish I'd stayed in bed. I feel like the studio session we did in COP on identity theories were much more useful. 

The lecture today focussed on racial and sexual identity a lot, specifically in the modern era, which I feel is a subject that is more directly relatable to fields like Fine Art and Photography. 

The idea that social mobility has moved on is quite interesting, as I still feel that social mobility is still somewhat constrained. Whilst I appreciate that anyone can make a success out of themselves by working hard and putting a lot of effort into something, I don't feel that anyone can make a success of themselves just by fulfilling their own idea of their own identity, which is what social mobility is by my understanding. 

Other than this, I don't really have any constructive thoughts on the lecture as I don't think there was much else of relevance. 

Lecture - Identity

Pre-Modern Identity - In the past, your identity was defined by your stable and longstanding, role within the class system. If you were working class you were identified as being working class.

Modern Identity - You were offered a wider range of roles to take on as society moved forward a bit in terms of social mobility. This allows you to start choosing your identity.

Post-Modern Identity - Today it is accepted that everyone has lots of identities as people fulfil different roles wherever they go and whatever they do. 

The idea of social mobility follows the trickle down theory, in that what the upper class people are doing, the middle class start trying to do, in order to improve their own identity, and what he middle class are doing, the working class start doing. This emulation and distinction is a constant process.

Georg Simmel theorises that people no longer show their whole identity, because the speed of modern life forces us within ourselves in order to find peace, rather than seeking it elsewhere.

Theories of Identity - Key Points

Sheldon Stryker's Theory

• We get out expectations of what our identity should be from others.
• The interactions between people are structured.
• The identity we show depends on our surroundings, both the physical and social aspects of them.
• The scale of importance of your individual identities is called the salience hierarchy.
• We confirm our identities through their validation from others.
• Role performance tests the suitability of your identity.
• People who perform similar roles to you are more likely to confirm your identity.
• Validation builds your self-esteem, which in turn effects your salience hierarch.
• You emotions and self-esteem are markers of the adequacy for your role.

Application in Graphic Design

Stryker's theory can be applied to graphic design in the sense that it can help us understand what is important to a specific demographic by seeing what gets validation, and this helps us successfully communicate with that demographic.

McCall and Simmons' Theory

• Your role identity is how you see yourself doing a specific role, not how society sees you doing it.
• Motivation is the want to fulfil your role your way.
• Validation from yourself is more important from validation from others.
• Others support is only important in terms of their support of your right to do something.
• When a group of people don't support your role identity, rather than changing your role identity, you won't fully reveal your role identity to similar groups of people.
• Interaction between people is a negotiation between people agreeing what peoples every person in the role identity is (altercasting).
• Interaction between people is unstructured.

Application in Graphic Design

McCall and Simmons' theory can be applied in the sense that it helps us understand and appreciate that everyone with have different needs, and that because of this there's no right or wrong way to do anything, and so just because something has already been done, there's nothing wrong with doing it again as the outcome will probably end up being slightly different as your personal opinions are going to be different from the personal opinions of those who've done it before.

Similarities and Differences

Both theories are similar in that they work on the basis of people adopting different identities in different scenarios, and that some form of validation is needed to re-enforce those identities, be it from yourself or others.

However Stryker's theory is based more around the individual wanting to feel part of society by slowly working towards a set of identities that society accepts, whereas McCall and Simmons' works the other way. Their theory more suggests that people want to shape society in their own image. 

My Thoughts

I feel that both theories make sense, and can both be applied, not only to different people due to their different personalities, but to the same person in different situations. Using myself at the beginning of university as an example, I started off by conforming to Stryker's theory as I wanted to be sure I wasn't going to be stuck on my own all year. When, subconsciously, I felt I had achieved this to a reasonable extend, I started changing to McCall and Simmons' theory, as I think that there came a point where my identity within uni had changed enough to the point that I'd noticed it, and I wanted to address that. What I think is particularly interesting in this example is that within the context of an Art College, being an individual such as in the McCall and Simmons' theory is arguably the norm, which suggests that within certain contexts, the second theory can fit in with the first theory, and I've no doubt that this would work the other way round in other contexts as well.

Subculture: The Idea of Style Lecture - My Thoughts

Richard said at the beginning of the documentary, that in his opinion, the closest thing that exists to a sub-culture at the moment is the hipster. I agree with him, and I think it's down to two reasons.

Since the 1990's, when the last true subculture ended, according to the documentary at least, Britain has become a lot more multi-cultural, and so mainstream society has a lot more ways of life within it than it ever has done in the past. This means that a lot more things are acceptable in todays youth culture, and things no longer need to be hidden within subcultures.

I also think that as society has become more sexualised and children are growing up faster, they go through the phase of wanting to identify themselves earlier than they used to. At the sort of ages that they want to express themselves nowadays they don't really have the freedom, means, organisation or communal power to make a real impact. Despite having said that I don't think there have been any true youth subcultures in my lifetime, I have been exposed to shouts of "emo" and "mosher" when walking through the park near my house back home by kids at least five years younger than me, at the age where image and identity is important to them.

I think this is pretty well summed up by the fact that I wouldn't really be able to classify many of the people I know at uni in any of the subcultures discussed today, because I think in the modern era, we're all passed the stage of being into a subculture. That said, the whole idea of a subculture is that you only associate with people in your own subculture, so why would I know anyone in a subculture given that I'm not in one myself. At least I don't think I'm in one anyway. I would imagine some people class being in at art school as a subculture, but if that was the case I would hate to be classed as an "art school kid".

Lecture - Subculture: The Meaning of Style

Dick Hebdige, (1978) "Youth cultural styles begin by issuing symbolic challenges, but they must be establishing new conventions by creating new commodities, new industries, or rejuvenating old ones."

Subcultures become part of mainstream culture in how they exist. The commercialism of mainstream culture finds ways to get money from subcultures, which makes the subcultures somewhat reliant on and part of the mainstream culture, which means that all subcultures are inevitably going to having limited time spans.

Becoming part of a subculture is generally buying into the idea of rebellion rather than choosing to join the culture because that's the way you as an individual would choose to live your life, as generally there's never a huge choice of subcultures to choose to identify yourself as being within. The idea of rebelling against mainstream culture is, in itself, somewhat flawed, as parts of the mainstream culture you're rebelling against survive because of rebellion.

The process of a subculture being absorbed into mainstream culture is called Incorporation. This generally happens in one of two ways, ideologically or commoditively. Ideologically is when the labelling of the culture in certain ways makes it so that the people within the culture no longer want to associate themselves with the culture, which is what kills it. Commoditively is where the subculture becomes overly reliant on mainstream culture for it to physically exist in terms of clothes etc, this slowly dilutes the subcultures into mainstream culture.

Teddy Boys

The era of the Teds was the first time when men started thinking about their appearance in terms of their hair etc. This was reflected in the lower classes as they wore clothes similar to those worn by the upper classes in a bit of a piss-takey way. The lower classes really stuck together through this phase and this was reflected in how solidly the idea of the teddy boy was portrayed. 

Rockers

The rockers were heavily American influenced, especially from films such as The Wild One, which really set the suggestion that being different was cool. This was the first subculture that established gaps in generations, as no parent wanted their child to being a rocker. The rocker culture was tried to be shut down by television and the media showing it in a negative light, but that only popularised it further with the youth of the country. However, in turn that meant that people were becoming part of the subculture that weren't taking it as seriously as the original rockers, slowly diluting into mainstream culture.

Modernists (Mods)

The mods started looking forward and trying new things, which is different to what previous subcultures had done. They mainly took influences from jazz music, not the rock and roll music that was previously popular, and was just generally about being cool. A lot of mods had scooters which gave them a sense of freedom as they were no longer reliant on their parents. As the subculture grew bigger and people from different generations became part of it with new ideas, the culture sort of split, with some of the original mods rebelling against the newer mods.

Skinheads

The skinhead subculture was generally started when some mods started rebelling against other mods by having their hair cut really short to emphasise the neatness. They also had influences from the West Indies, where people were arriving from in England at the time. Because of this skinhead culture was particularly noticeable in deprived areas where white people and black people both lived together in what was a fairly racist era. As soon as the media coverage started people started growing their hair slightly longer to get away from the medias associations, and so the subculture slowly died by the 70's. It was back again during the mid 70's though, but this time as a uniform for racism. This was because it was quite an intimidating look.

Soul Boys

Blues & Soul magazine spread the subculture nationwide. It was mainly about loose clothes, being comfortable and dancing. It had a friendly atmosphere and was more about the people within the subculture than any icons of it, and because of this was generally left alone by the media, and generally just died down of its own accord.

Punk

The punk era was mainly about provoking a reaction, and in contrast to how the teds and mods look was very rehearsed, the punk look had more of a do-it-yourself attitude, and there wasn't really a wrong way to be a punk. It was more inclusive of the influences of females than any other subculture up to that point, and arguably is where the roots of modern day feminism stem from.

Casuals

The casuals subculture was mainly about fashion and football, and originated in Liverpool, where Liverpool fans would come back from away games in Europe with expensive sports clothing that wasn't available in England at the time. This trend caught on in England and it slowly became fairly mainstream that expensive clothes were being sold to what were essentially football hooligans. Towards the end of the 80's ecstasy was getting big and took over from this culture.

Rave

Rave culture was about taking a lot of drugs, dressing individually but comfortably and dancing. This got so big that it was becoming commercial as there was a lot of money to be made from it, this started making it more generic.

The Gaze and The Media Lecture - My Thoughts

I think it's pretty well known that using sex in advertising is a strategy for selling, as it sort of comes under shock tactics and sort of has its own category of advertising, so I would suggest that, whilst Rosalind Cowards theory makes sense, I also think that in the modern day world, where male grooming and appearance is becoming a big thing as well, that the camera can also work as an extension of the female gaze. Because of this I wouldn't really suggest that it was an extension of anyones gaze, as that sort of implies extra power to some people but not to others, I'd rather suggest that the camera is more of an insight into what were once other peoples private  moments. I use the word insight rather than intrusion, as I think that you must bare in mind that all people photographed for advertising campaigns both agreed to and were paid do be in the campaigns. 

As society is becoming more sexualised, I think the Titian painting used as part of an explanation of Bergers theory sums up most of the nudity in todays media. I think a good example is this Dolce & Gabbana advert, where both the male and female have equally semi challenging expressions. Whilst they're not fully challenging the camera, they seem to accept it, which I think is a strong reflection on todays media.

Despite saying this, it's difficult to disagree with the argument that their is more female nudity than male nudity in the media. I don't know enough about art history to really have any thoughts on Griselda Pollock's theory, but I would suggest that it's a difficult subject for feminism to attempt to change due to how firmly embedded it is into the media. I think as long as you have "good causes" subscribing to the idea that sex sells, it's somewhat difficult to challenge sexism in the media head on. This campaign for PETA, an organisation that campaigns for the Ethical treating of animals, is a perfect example. I would argue that the ethical treatment of people is more important than the ethical treatment of animals, and would suggest that any organisation campaigning for the ethical treatment of animals should be more than happy with the ethical treatment/use of people within their organisation. The fact that they deem it acceptable that an advert using nudity and innuendo such as this is somewhat astonishing to my mind, and shows just how "acceptable" nudity is within the media.

I would also argue that the idea of women being feeling uneasy being able to eat bananas in public, as suggested Sarah Lucas' work supporting Pollocks theory is absurd, although I suppose I can never truly be sure of this given that I'm male. Personally I feel like the whole idea of phallic innuendo is generally taken as a joke within society, as shown by this Volvo ad, a company which will generally have a male target audience.

That said, it does sort of imply that male nudity is somewhat of a joke in response to female nudity. I think that that's the way it will always be though, purely because female nudity in the media is such a big thing, I can't see how it can be stopped or even curbed without using fairly radical measures which would question the whole idea of a free market.

Lecture - The Gaze and The Media

John Berger

Quote from John Berger, "According to usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have by no means been overcome - men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at".

By this Berger means that women are forced to carry around an image of themselves in their heads as society judges them on their appearance. His theory is that art from the renaissance era depict women as being aware that they are being looked at by men. 

Hans Memling
Vanity
1485

The woman is looking at herself, which implies that it's ok for others to look at her. As she is not looking at us, the power is in our hands to look at her.

Alexandre Cabanel
Birth of Venus
1863

The way the womans body is positioned is such that whilst we are free to look at her, she can't challenge our gaze as her own gaze is covered.




Titian
Venus of Urbino
1538

Even though the woman has some sense of the power in the way her gaze interrupts our own, her facial expression and suggestive positioning of her hand are giving us permission to look at her.

Manet
Olympia
1863

Bergers arguement is that there weren't enough nudes painted like this, where the woman's gaze is more challenging in the positioning of the body is more protective.





Rosalind Coward

An essay on female identity in 1984 by Rosalind Coward suggests that the camera in the media is just an extension of the male gaze, empowered by its invisibility.

Eva Herzigova
The Wonder Bra
1994

Studies showed that when this advert was used as a billboard traffic on the roads slowed down. It suggests that it's fashionable not care about being sexually objectified.

Dolce & Gabbana
2007

This advertisement shows how male nudity it advertising generally provides a much more powerful gaze, supporting Cowards theory.








Griselda Pollock

Griselda Pollock's theory is that women are marginalised in art history because most of art history and the movements within it are run through the achievements and successes of males, and that modern art is slowly changing due to feminism.

Artemisia Gentileshi
Judith Slaying Holofernes
1612

There isn't much art that shows women in acts of power or showing physical strength. This painting shows this along with a fair bit of gore.

Cindy Sherman
Film Stills
1979

Photography such as this which shows the woman choosing not to look at herself in the mirror takes away the implication that we can look at her. The portrait positioning of the woman takes the emphasis away from her body and makes it less sexual.

Sarah Lucas
Eating a Banana
1990

The aggressive return of the womans gaze empowers the women in the photo doing something that could otherwise be made out to be sexually provocative.