The bluest eye is about the outward understanding of self and identity while the lipstick jihad is about the inward understanding of self and identity. The bluest eye is about race and lipstick jihad is about gender differences and the struggle of women.
In the bluest eye Pecola, the main character, is constantly going through the struggle of being ugly, which she had been brought up on. Ever since she was young, she was taught that she is ugly. Therefore, she tried to get the blue eyes in order to be beautiful or convey to others that she is beautiful from outside.
In the Lipstick Jihad, women are struggling to keep up with men. They are fighting for their liberalism and for a chance to be considered the same. To have the same standard or stature in society as men is one of the main struggles women are facing, according to this book. This concern is present throughout the world and not just in Iran. Women everywhere are fighting for their rights to be considered equal.
Overall, these two books have a lot of things in common like the struggle of women to be beautiful and be equal among men to be one of the many concerns.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Designer labels are a huge part of today’s lifestyle. Many people are willing to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on one piece of clothing or accessory because of the name it has on the label. May it be a clothing item, or a pair of the newest sunglasses, the name on the label says everything. It defines many people because of the designer labels and the type of labels they wear and own.
Society, in today’s world forces people to look and feel there best every day. People are forced by this society to look satisfied at all times. Celebrities are required, as part of which they are, to always look their best and satisfied because of the amount of wealth and satisfaction they receive from what they do. This type of satisfaction is very closely watched by the media, which is then portrayed onto the public, who then want to be exactly like the celebrity. The economy today prevents such expenditures on luxurious items and forces people to instead buy a counterfeit brand label or to not buy at all.
I will also talk about the Psychological effect that is brought on by satisfying ones shopping desires is greatly valued. It is the media today that brings upon these feelings towards owning material things. The commercials brought upon by marketing campaigns of famous companies that involve catching the audience off guard and attack everyone’s weaker sides to influence them to buy the promoted product.
The sources I will be using mainly consist of Internet websites, along with a few journal and newspaper articles regarding research done on audiences who have seen such commercials, and the aftermath of watching them.
Society, in today’s world forces people to look and feel there best every day. People are forced by this society to look satisfied at all times. Celebrities are required, as part of which they are, to always look their best and satisfied because of the amount of wealth and satisfaction they receive from what they do. This type of satisfaction is very closely watched by the media, which is then portrayed onto the public, who then want to be exactly like the celebrity. The economy today prevents such expenditures on luxurious items and forces people to instead buy a counterfeit brand label or to not buy at all.
I will also talk about the Psychological effect that is brought on by satisfying ones shopping desires is greatly valued. It is the media today that brings upon these feelings towards owning material things. The commercials brought upon by marketing campaigns of famous companies that involve catching the audience off guard and attack everyone’s weaker sides to influence them to buy the promoted product.
The sources I will be using mainly consist of Internet websites, along with a few journal and newspaper articles regarding research done on audiences who have seen such commercials, and the aftermath of watching them.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sontag's On Photography
Sontag begins by mentioning photography is around us wherever we go. May it be the posters on the wall, the newspapers on the side of the street, or even in house hanging on the wall. Sontag mentions, “newspapers and magazines feature them; cops alphabetize them; and publishers compile them.” They surround us, and today, these photographs tell us a lot about who’s in the photos. I believe that the photographs today are very much linked psychologically to what Sontag was talking about in On Photography.
Susan Sontag explains that photography is no longer a way to remember the past, rather it is, “a way of certifying experiences…” This simply goes to justify that people are taking pictures to remind themselves of what they have done. With the amount of technology available today, someone can go to Paris in a picture from the comfort of their computer chair. This, Sontag explains, is very deceiving to people because no one can tell except for the person taking or making that photograph.
Photographs have been a way to capture the past so you can enjoy in the present and future, yet what they symbolize is partly fake. Each time a photograph is being taken, the photographer often says cheese, to have the subject smile, even though they might not be in a happy state. This creates false truths about the photograph and the people, which in the future, we wonder about and try to figure out whether the photo represents something real or fake.
After reading Sontag’s On Photography, the phrase a photo says a thousand words, has a new meaning. Sontag explains that a photo, no matter how beautiful can be indistinct and create false truths. Sontag mentions, “to photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves…” If the subject of the photograph doesn’t seem to be able to know what state of mind they are in while taking the photograph, then who are we to judge whether that smile on their face is legit or just a show.
Susan Sontag explains that photography is no longer a way to remember the past, rather it is, “a way of certifying experiences…” This simply goes to justify that people are taking pictures to remind themselves of what they have done. With the amount of technology available today, someone can go to Paris in a picture from the comfort of their computer chair. This, Sontag explains, is very deceiving to people because no one can tell except for the person taking or making that photograph.
Photographs have been a way to capture the past so you can enjoy in the present and future, yet what they symbolize is partly fake. Each time a photograph is being taken, the photographer often says cheese, to have the subject smile, even though they might not be in a happy state. This creates false truths about the photograph and the people, which in the future, we wonder about and try to figure out whether the photo represents something real or fake.
After reading Sontag’s On Photography, the phrase a photo says a thousand words, has a new meaning. Sontag explains that a photo, no matter how beautiful can be indistinct and create false truths. Sontag mentions, “to photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves…” If the subject of the photograph doesn’t seem to be able to know what state of mind they are in while taking the photograph, then who are we to judge whether that smile on their face is legit or just a show.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Corporation
The film is discussing the traits and qualities of a corporation and its owners. The way they do their business is remarkable to them, which is to generate as much profit as they can, doing as little as then can. Their employees are produced from outsourcing and the conditions in which they work are horrendous. In fact, the owner themselves do not wish to go to these places to observe their own establishments because they don’t think of it as much as they should. Looking at the previous topic of No Logo it is understood that these corporations are a product of Logo. The corporations create a logo which becomes a style and furthers the corporation’s space in the market of being the most profitable.
The products that these corporations make are beneficial to the North American public where the factories are not present; these products is produced in third world countries where the public first asks these corporations to come and after the people get jobs and money, they then demand for more and more. The movie discusses the main reason to outsource is to save money on labor costs and such but if the corporations start giving the same rate and benefits as they do to the North Americans then the profit margin will decrease exponentially, which is not an option in the corporation’s handbook of making profits. The one thing that is against all the profiteering although is the child labor, but in a way that cannot be fixed because the children that work, is due to their lack of funds to feed themselves or their families.
The film was produced to shock the ignorant people to come out of their shells and voice their opinion about what the big corporations are doing to the third world countries. Even though they have the well being of the citizens of these countries but it eventually becomes a motivator for profiteering and ignoring all the rules and laws of humanity.
Also, No Logo discussed that advertising is the key to profiteering and in the film “The Corporation” it is no different.
The products that these corporations make are beneficial to the North American public where the factories are not present; these products is produced in third world countries where the public first asks these corporations to come and after the people get jobs and money, they then demand for more and more. The movie discusses the main reason to outsource is to save money on labor costs and such but if the corporations start giving the same rate and benefits as they do to the North Americans then the profit margin will decrease exponentially, which is not an option in the corporation’s handbook of making profits. The one thing that is against all the profiteering although is the child labor, but in a way that cannot be fixed because the children that work, is due to their lack of funds to feed themselves or their families.
The film was produced to shock the ignorant people to come out of their shells and voice their opinion about what the big corporations are doing to the third world countries. Even though they have the well being of the citizens of these countries but it eventually becomes a motivator for profiteering and ignoring all the rules and laws of humanity.
Also, No Logo discussed that advertising is the key to profiteering and in the film “The Corporation” it is no different.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
ohman "selling culture" vs. klein "no logo"
Comparing Ohman and No logo was not that difficult since they were both basically discussing the same topics. Well not the same topic but the roots of the topic were the same. As we discussed last week that ohman talks about advertising products into the culture to make them part of the lifestyle instead of having it secondary to people’s lives. Also ohman talked about capitalism being the good and the bad. “There are always two sides to every story”.
In No Logo, the topic and the discussion is very similar to that of ohman’s selling culture article. There are similar points in both articles such as advertising, to the extent that people no longer have choices. The people are persuaded in a way that they are not able to overcome the desire, the brand named products have on them. They are to believe that the same product with exactly same material as the brand named product is bad and will not be good enough for them even though it is much cheaper.
“Branding has become into a lifestyle” is what seems in today’s world where cheap products are labeled and made into very exquisite and exclusive products that only the rich can buy. This brings us to the ohman article where he mentions that poor people are becoming poorer and the rich people are getting richer. Selling culture was another one of the topics in ohman’s article, which directly corresponds to the No Logo article.
In my words, I think No Logo is simply some product that does not have a logo, which is meant for the people that cannot afford to buy the brand named ones. All the advertising is done to prevent people from buying “No Logo” products, even though they are both the same quality. The only difference is that one has a logo of a conglomerate and the other has no name written on it. People now days think that they are being judged by what they are wearing. For example if they are wearing brand named or no name, which is in a way true, but only to an extent. It is not completely true, I think it is only the case in some parts of the cities. Not everyone is blessed to buy expensive brand name products. It is a market for the rich and the poor people have nowhere to turn.
Advertising is the topic that is discussed in both articles and it is very much affective in today’s society where customers look at ads and decide whether to purchase the product or not to. The decision is made during the one minute ad on television, and that is the reality. That is the reason why huge corporations are spending a big portion of their money into advertising expense.
In No Logo, the topic and the discussion is very similar to that of ohman’s selling culture article. There are similar points in both articles such as advertising, to the extent that people no longer have choices. The people are persuaded in a way that they are not able to overcome the desire, the brand named products have on them. They are to believe that the same product with exactly same material as the brand named product is bad and will not be good enough for them even though it is much cheaper.
“Branding has become into a lifestyle” is what seems in today’s world where cheap products are labeled and made into very exquisite and exclusive products that only the rich can buy. This brings us to the ohman article where he mentions that poor people are becoming poorer and the rich people are getting richer. Selling culture was another one of the topics in ohman’s article, which directly corresponds to the No Logo article.
In my words, I think No Logo is simply some product that does not have a logo, which is meant for the people that cannot afford to buy the brand named ones. All the advertising is done to prevent people from buying “No Logo” products, even though they are both the same quality. The only difference is that one has a logo of a conglomerate and the other has no name written on it. People now days think that they are being judged by what they are wearing. For example if they are wearing brand named or no name, which is in a way true, but only to an extent. It is not completely true, I think it is only the case in some parts of the cities. Not everyone is blessed to buy expensive brand name products. It is a market for the rich and the poor people have nowhere to turn.
Advertising is the topic that is discussed in both articles and it is very much affective in today’s society where customers look at ads and decide whether to purchase the product or not to. The decision is made during the one minute ad on television, and that is the reality. That is the reason why huge corporations are spending a big portion of their money into advertising expense.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Ohman vs. Adorno/Horkeimer
Ohman and A/H have their own essays “selling culture” and “The culture industry” respectively which have a lot of differences but even with the differences they relate back to the same topics as each other. Some of the topics were advertising, culture, and capitalism. In Ohman’s essay, he seems to be on board with capitalism whereas A/H are opposed to it. Ohman seems to be praising capitalism and A/H is displaying flaws and negativity. They both talk about advertising as a popular way of conveying a message through the public and culture brings both of these arguments together.
A/H believed that the leaders in one way or another were advertising capitalism in the sense that “one culture is liked and admired by all” and that “everyone follow the very culture that all people are doing”. Advertising led to people acting the same way and buying the same products where no one would be able to portray themselves as individuals in the society. Manufacturers advertised their products to the extreme in order for the culture to come into effect and take over, which allows the people to buy their product as a fashion requirement and not something useless. The only reason to advertise into the culture is to make ample amounts of profit and not considering the economic times or the needs of the consumer.
By Ohman’s essay, it looks like capitalism is just another way of making profit which requires the use of culture and advertising. Without advertising into the culture, capitalism might not profit and that is the whole concept of Ohman. He realized the advantages and disadvantage of capitalism. But on the other hand A/H has not realized the advantages, they seem to be displaying complete negativity towards capitalism.
Overall, both of the essays were in good context and were discussing the positive and negative sides of capitalism and the affects of culture and advertising brings upon it. In “The culture industry”, capitalism is stated as the poor people become poorer and the rich become the more rich and the middle class people stay where they are because they are not taking any chances. “Selling culture” on the other hand discussed the good and the bad affects of capitalism which was much better for the reader since it wasn’t a one sided subjective opinion and was an objective one, which is more educational and relevant to today’s readers as a whole.
A/H believed that the leaders in one way or another were advertising capitalism in the sense that “one culture is liked and admired by all” and that “everyone follow the very culture that all people are doing”. Advertising led to people acting the same way and buying the same products where no one would be able to portray themselves as individuals in the society. Manufacturers advertised their products to the extreme in order for the culture to come into effect and take over, which allows the people to buy their product as a fashion requirement and not something useless. The only reason to advertise into the culture is to make ample amounts of profit and not considering the economic times or the needs of the consumer.
By Ohman’s essay, it looks like capitalism is just another way of making profit which requires the use of culture and advertising. Without advertising into the culture, capitalism might not profit and that is the whole concept of Ohman. He realized the advantages and disadvantage of capitalism. But on the other hand A/H has not realized the advantages, they seem to be displaying complete negativity towards capitalism.
Overall, both of the essays were in good context and were discussing the positive and negative sides of capitalism and the affects of culture and advertising brings upon it. In “The culture industry”, capitalism is stated as the poor people become poorer and the rich become the more rich and the middle class people stay where they are because they are not taking any chances. “Selling culture” on the other hand discussed the good and the bad affects of capitalism which was much better for the reader since it wasn’t a one sided subjective opinion and was an objective one, which is more educational and relevant to today’s readers as a whole.
Monday, January 19, 2009
personal info
Hello,
my name is saqib shahid and my first name is pronounced sakib as it is written. i would like to be called by my first name. i am in my fourth year of business admin. program and majoring in accounting. i work full time during the day and attend classes in the evening. i have a full course load because i am trying to finish school as soon as possible. summer is going to be hopefully my last semester. i am hoping that this semester will be a good one. i am signing out now but only to return again next week......
my name is saqib shahid and my first name is pronounced sakib as it is written. i would like to be called by my first name. i am in my fourth year of business admin. program and majoring in accounting. i work full time during the day and attend classes in the evening. i have a full course load because i am trying to finish school as soon as possible. summer is going to be hopefully my last semester. i am hoping that this semester will be a good one. i am signing out now but only to return again next week......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)