New blog Jeremy Jeresky

Okay, last class, on the 15th we talked about The Society of The Spectacal, Simulacra and Hyperreality. And, in actuality it is, of course, so fitting that a copy of a copy of a copy is hitherto sent to all of you regarding my thoughts, which are esentially a copy of a copy hitherto.of ....mine.... Therefore the referent is......nonexziztent.,.. which is good, actually., because that would be keeping in line with the sensiblility of last class.

Yes we live in a society of proliferated imagery, we all know this. TV, The News, Popoular Cinema, the internet, Mass media, Magazines, Zines, everything and of the above. For the most part most people with half a brain can see and acknowlegde that there is a game going on, ...being played by the producers of image and commoditiy, and those who choose what ever cost they may deem fit or sutible.....depending on their stakes, or gamble. The game is open....

It is a tight game, and yet, a loose engagement... between the conglomerate who produce, and market,..and those who partake and subsist..... I personally don't give a shit. I don't watch TV, I Don't really go to "popular movies" , I go to artsy cool movies,.. which anyone with a bit of a brain would'nt really normally go to. And most of the time, for fun I try to spit on people from my seventh story belcony, it gives me a ten second sense of power, one which no one will ever be able to take away from me.

Actually, I don't even go to artsy movies.....because they are too damn artsy, and pretty much too damn hyperreal. I Hate that about artsy movies.....they try to shove an ideal real down your throat,...even though the real is maybe, hopefully, centered around you. Around the feeling that there could be a suspection or surcumvention of primordial perception.

The hyperreal is the hyperreal, the simulacrum is the simulacrum, and the society of the spectacle is................
we do not need a history lesson. what we need is some straight up therory. Some thing down to earth to bring us young students to-ge-the-er.
let therory, technical exchange and collective maluability be the genisis within this evolutional partition.

No Class Monday Oct. 22 (but, a lecture!)

Hi everyone,

I just became aware of a lecture taking place at the same time as our class next Monday (Oct. 22) at the U of C, that I'm recommending everyone attend if you can. In order to make this possible, I'm cancelling our class meeting this week. The group that was to prepare questions for this week will send them to me, and I'll make copies available for the class next time we meet.

The lecture is entitled "Limits of Visual Studies" and the speaker is James Elkins, from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. For the past decade, James Elkins has been at the forefront of the development of Visual Studies (or Visual Culture studies), authoring more than 20 books on vision, visibility, and art. I think this lecture presents a great link with our class, and I hope you'll try to make it. I will be posting a short writing assignment related to the lecture in the next couple days; for those of you who do not attend the lecture, I will come up with another (likely much more onerous) assignment to fill the 10% assignment listed on our syllabus.

Limits of Visual Studies
Lecture by James Elkins
Monday, October 22, 2007
7:00 PM
Boris Roubakine Hall (Craigie Hall C105)
University of Calgary
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Visual studies is expanding rapidly, with new programs being developed throughout the world. At the same time, it is not expanding into the generalized study of visuality that it was initially imagined to be. Instead it is condensing around a small number of images and theorists, and is being read by an increasingly constrained community of scholars. This talk reviews some strengths and weaknesses of visual studies, in anticipation of the 2011 conference called "Farewell to Visual Studies."

We Like to Watch - Jen Konanz

Since there looks like an interest in the American Apparel ads, here are links for some of their commercials

http://blog.searchanyway.com/2007/05/viral_video_nitty_gritty.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-fkVvNxV9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxyJSfdsGCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wAbG2-vpCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzcKmn5gB78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpS4-dJJfvg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Cl_qFMZK0



All the video commercials (except the first one)have a real visual slickness to them whereas the print ads do look pretty gritty - as in low quality, out of focus, amateur. Some of them are also formatted as personal ads so that ads another layer of "factualness" to them. Here's a few more of the particularly amateur looking ads:

We Like to Watch - Jen Konanz

Since the "africam" was mentioned in our reading for last week, I thought I'd post the link for it. If somebody actually sees a live animal I would be surprised though. There are highlights of video footage on the main page though which is more efficient than sitting for hours waiting for something live. Does seeing it live really feel different than watching the highlights though? When we were discussing in class how easily it would be to put up fake web cam feeds it really makes you think...

The apparent purpose of posting the highlights is for convenience - so that you don't have to sit in front of the live cam for hours for the chance of seeing an animal. Or, the highlights will make you want to watch the live cam in hopes of catching something similar to what the highlights promise. Hypothetically, if the rhinos had been wiped off the planet, this site could replay highlights from months, years ago and nobody would know. Even though that's unlikely, it raises questions about the truth of any kind of surveillance cam. How easy is it to manipulate surveillance cams that are used for evidence in criminal acts?


http://www.africam.com/wildlife/index.php#
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apparel ads

I checked out the American Apparel ads on youtube and I have to say that I didn't find them to be all that gritty. My first thought was that they were in reference to music videos. This was evident by the treatments with the in/out focus of the lense as well as a preocupation with form of the body. The models were also constantly looking at the viewer. There was quite a bit of high contrast and clarity, I was expecting some cheap digital camera or cell phone footage. I actually didn't have sound when I was watching them but I could imagine hearing Brittney Spears singing in the background. I dont' know, mabye my comment says more about the commercialization of music rather than anything about the Apparel ads...

Adrian V.

Oct 01 post Jeremy Jeresky

Todays visual culture class was pretty interesting. I thought Ali, Jennifer, Alex and Koren did a great job in researching and developing questions based on this weeks reading.

A particular aspect that I found interesting, and one that related to my semiotic ad analysis, was that of the authentic as it pertains to visual quality. This was question no.2 of the group discussion. What does visual quality suggest to viewers about the truth?

This sets us up for the aesthetic criticism; If something is highly produced (glossy, high production cost) is the reality striped from it? and is "grittiness" considered more truthful/ direct/ authentic?

I analyzed an American Apparel ad for my semiotic analysis assignment, and while I did'nt comment on the low budget or homemade (gritty) aesthetic ( the particular ad I chose did'nt exactly denote or conotate this sign) I did notice that many other American Apparel ads use this styalistic stratagem.

I believe we talked about this for a brief moment in class as well when we were discussing question 2. The question is why? American Apparel is a $200 million/year company. And you can bet that they spend a lot of $ on advertising research and development.

As a young and progressive company , they have qued into the fact that their target market (20's) is underestimatedly sophistocated and media suave. And using this low budget, quasi porn style most likley does invoke a strong sense of immediacy and rawness.These ads are edgey and fast, like the culture they are targeted for. This is an advertising statagey that I believe is pretty ground braking and I would say, highly innovative. I really havent seen a series of ads like this before, or to the extent that it is so provocative.

Right or wrong, exploitive or gregarious, they are very successfull in terms of what an advertisment's objective is. The question remains weather this style of "grittiness" will evolve or push further boundries of provocation. How will this stratagem be used by other advertisment agencies and in what further form will it take?

I could probably go on, but it's late , I'm tired, but if any one wants to add somthin, please do.

Oct 01 post Jeremy Jeresky