FEMINISM HO YEAH...?

Post no. 5




Alright, before I start critically analyzing this, check out the video I embed above.

The question today is, in what way does digital photography sexually idealizes women to appear in media and how are they perceived today?

But first, how are women portrayed in the media I consume?

Of course, Victoria Secret models.

Something I noticed when I googled perfume ads were that majority of the women in those photographs were nude.

Or somewhat nude, in this case this ad appears to have a little hint of 'women empowerment'. However, she being in a cat suit is a sexual innuendo all by itself. 

That video up there pretty much explains the matter on a one side type of view, but I have to agree on what it said about photographs that portray women like this get sales as it supports the idea of 'sex-sells'. We were already exposed to these ads at a very young age. Therefore, it molded and 'brain-washed' us to think that the women in those photographs were the perfect embodiment of that a female should be. Hence, insecure girls get make up and plastic surgery to look like those photo manipulated models in those images.

We could look at this from two points of views.
We could either blame the media from molding this idea of perfection or blame the public for wanting that idealization of perfection in the media.

Humans strive for perfection. And when they do see a product that would help them achieve that, they would get it. I've watched a recent documentary on the science of Lust in Discovery Channel which says that both men and women unconsciously succumb to lust whether they like it or not. Of course there's that 1% of 'asexuals' that are not affected at all. So, through these digital photographs, photographers are actually exploiting the existing dopamine in our brains that helps them sell products. Even you, briefly glancing at those images I have uploaded in this post, had already ignited your dopamines, therefore increasing the chances of you reading the whole post even though it's so wordy compared to the times when you were all 'too-long-didn't read'. Photographs like these sparks energy, increases your heart rate and patience for any activity according to one of the science researchers in the documentary.

The message in these photographs mention on how if you buy this product, you will look as perfect as the model, or that you would be wanted. Somehow if you gave me an un-photoshopped, out of shaped woman selling me dresses in the ad, I would find it a total turn off as I would not want to look like her. Shallow as it sounds, the industry indeed is very superficial and shallow. That is what the media shows, and that's how we perceive it.

If I were to be very honest, I'd pick the Victoria Secret Love My Body Campaign's photograph  compared to Dove's. I do appreciate the initiative and message Dove is trying to give but, the photograph above is definitely nicer to look at. However, if I lived in the 1600s, I would have chosen the Dove's campaign photograph as that was how beauty was popularized in those days. I would have said the Victoria Secret models were scrawny and ugly because they looked like lacked fertility and health. However, that's how the idea of beauty evolves. Who knows? Maybe in the near future the idea of beauty now reverses?

Well, to sum it all up, you can't really put a blame on the media or the public. Both contributes to some aspect.

How do I portray women in the work I produce?

http://www.behance.net/gallery/Angels/4573285

This is some of the foundation work I did, I think I have portrayed the model in a more demure way emphasizing the story more than the model's beauty itself. I guess I could get a little bit feminist without knowing so.  OR, it could be my Asian upbringing where conservative = good.

Where do I get these ideas from?
Photoshopped perfected models from digital photographed ads and digitally designed 3d characters from games.

Jawaharlal Nehru - A tryst with Destiny

Post no. 4

Our group which consisted of Wilson, Shabu, Carmen and I did a presentation on the analysis of Jawaharlal's famous 'A Tryst with Destiny' speech a couple of weeks ago.

The presentation went great, with no nerves and such- but we missed out a VERY KEY point. We did not explain the title of his speech. So, here it goes.

A 'Tryst' basically means a private rendezvous, a date or some sort between lovers. He used it in another context though. Instead it was about a rendezvous of India with her future destiny.

Why did he use the word 'tryst'?
According to its definition, it was about a private occasion, secretive. In contrary to the situation he delivered this speech in. However, it may also mean precious and meaningful as India has fought hard for a hundred years for that single tryst with destiny.

I have embed a video that is one of our main sources for analyzing his speech.

That video is pretty much explanatory. 
The feedback and questions we had during the presentation were:
1. What if Jawaharlal spoke in Hindu, instead of English? Would it yield the same effect? Or even a better one?
Our answer was that, the people in India already had proper English education provided under the British rule over them over the stretch of 100 years. Therefore, it would not be a hassle for them to understand his speech. However, this speech was specially targeted toward the members of the Constituent Assembly, as well as the SAHIBS. (Sahibs are used to address European men that live in colonial India.) 

Here's a link to our presentation.

Media Culture : Brainstorming 3

Post no. 3

INSTALAGLAM

When I think of Instagram, I either think of overused filters that distort perfectly decent pictures, or pictures that actually become more pleasant after a filter is layered onto them. What bugs me the most when I started using instagram, was the fact that it had a limit of resizing every picture I take into a square. Does not require any type of specific skill as anyone who has a smart phone can use it and master it in a matter of seconds.

As an unprofessional (professional soon to be), I do think this app, along with other photo apps could endanger/help the professional world in their own ways. Although it favors more to the endangering aspect, I still think there is some kind of benefits of these advancements to creative professionals.

How could Instagram aid creative professionals?
Other than the creative professionals that actually invented the apps, future professionals could also get a current update on how a user interface is best portrayed. This way, future apps could get a better understanding of what interface is easier for users to learn, hence increasing user experience and avoiding too much misunderstanding and frustration. The apps would be more uniformed and simple.

Now how do apps like these 'destroy' the creative professionals?
Because of the many filters they have provided in the app itself, there is no longer a need for a professional with special skills to Photoshop them. The convenience of photo taking on personal devices puts professional photographers out of work as well as people would like to take the photos themselves rather than spending the extra cash to hire a professional.

Therefore, professionals are only in demand in a professional market, which is quite a narrow range compared to the public market. They face difficulties in duplicating the effects that are easily achievable by apps and also the fact that photos from apps like Instagram could be instantly updated in social networks would attract investors for advertising away from print media toward a more non-professional but widely spread medium.

Investors that fled to these customary apps will reduce revenue for traditional professional photography. Even sites like National Geographic are advertising themselves in Facebook as well. Photos get published faster and in bigger quantities through these apps rather than professional photographs because there is a  need to touch up those high resolution photos. Users want instant information, they would prefer a decent picture with live speed rather than a very high-quality picture that only gets developed a day after.

After these app photos are published, the demand for photographs taken by professional are fewer.

Media Cultures: Brainstorming 2

Post no. 2

Photoshop.

Now how does the popularity of Photoshop impact creative professionals in the industry?

The most common perception that people have most of Photoshop,  would be Photoshop's main purpose were to 'improve' wrinkly faced elderly or to make fat people skinnier on magazine covers.

This software is definitely very popular among designers nowadays. Personally, it is one of my favourite forms of expression when it comes to the output of my creativity and work. It just seems so easy to learn and comprehend. Once you've learned the basics, you could pretty much operate Photoshop to achieve the result you want.

How does this new technology affect creative professionals? I think since Photoshop mainly deals with digital graphics, or graphics in general,  (some animation could be involved as well ex. Gifs that could be made by Photoshop) we could break it down to two types of creative professionals that might be affected the most in this area.

The digital graphic designers as well as the traditional media graphic designers.

Lets talk about the digital graphic professionals. The rise of Photoshop provides tons of opportunity to amateurs to gain basic knowledge of graphic design through Photoshop tutorials that are easily accessible online. This can be a threat to the professionals that are already using this media to execute their projects. Young designers have fresher ideas, and ways to solve problems compared to those who have been in the industry for a long time and no longer have the capability of thinking of new concepts.

 If the digital professionals are updated however, this would be a threat to the younger graphic designers or photographers who do not possess the skill to execute a well polished, finished piece that could only be acquired through years of experience. (Kinda like what I've mentioned in the earlier post).

On to the traditional graphic professionals, Photoshop has definitely robbed a great amount of professionals from this line of work. Photoshop has presets that could duplicate the brush strokes that could be done by traditional media easily. Its also much more easier to produce a more clean finish as the designers are able to undo their mistakes and have a more variety of colours and effects to choose from. Plug ins like kuler aid the digital 'Photoshoppers' in their color schemes and choices, therefore depleting the need for designers to really experiment with colours which takes time and effort and tons of mistakes to accomplish. Traditional tyographers also fall under this category as there is no more real need to even pick up an ink brush or a pencil. Photoshop has made it simple for everyone to use.

However, experience and skills combined with the  right set of technologies like Photoshop could birth an artwork so godly that not even the slightest breath of an amateur could dwindle its place at the top of the designer food chain.
(Exaggeration getting out of hand here)

Next post, Instagram.

Media Cultures: Brainstorming 1

Post no. 1

I was told I could regurgitate anything I could get from my cranium that relates to Question 6 and it would count as a post.

Alright, the popular uses of Digital Cameras and how it affects creative professionals in the   industry.

Notice how I didn't put up Canon branded cameras. I'm unbiased like that. Plus, the rivalry between the two brands annoys the hell out of me.

When I think of Digital cameras, I think of the two types of cameras which are used by both amateurs and professionals; being the ever so popular compact digital cameras and the more Professional DSLRs (a.k.a a Digital single-lens reflex camera. Prior to owning one, I actually had to Google the acronyms. Aren't I ever so qualified to even call myself a designer.) Also, you have the semi-pro DSLRs, but I pretty much always categorize them under the cameras-that-amateurs-get-to-look-professional category.

Manual cameras, I'd just think about people who are extremely talented just like the Human Camera, Stephen Wiltshire. And of course your traditional film cameras that takes ages to develop.

Speaking of manual cameras, INSTAX cameras have been rather popular lately. Although it's expensive, people still want them. A sense of nostalgia, I guess?

Anyway, from what I know about both types of digital cameras are that some of them contain presets like effects, color correct, blur and such. This way, allowing lesser professionals access to greater photos. This definitely dangers the industry as polished photos could be taken more easily with lesser effort and cost. Amateurs that have the capability of owning a DSLR however, but take really bad photos..hmm okay I shall not get into that in case it gets too personal.

But if I were to critically look upon the use of DSLRs, real professional photographers do not really have a lot of competition. So far in my entire life of living (I may be exaggerating a wee bit), I rarely come across a real polished, unphoto-shopped picture that could have the same, or even higher qualities as the top photographers that are in BEHANCE or any professional site for that matter. As long as the super professionals are updating themselves with new ways and software to improve their work, I don't think they should worry about the rise of the digital cameras because compact cameras only takes one so far.

Photography acquires skill, precision, and long years of practice to perfect. And through experience, comes awesome results. Even though I do posses my own personal DSLR, I'd still go to a professional to get my portrait, or even my passport photo taken. Oh, it's sounding a lot like blabbler now.

Of course, people nowadays rather purchase compact cameras due to its durability and size and such. Maybe increasing the demand for compact cameras being used by ammeters and hence, decreasing the supply of professional photographers in the market which then would increase their demand instead?

Oh.. I think I miss my business studies.

So far I have been comparing of the advancements of digital cameras would affect the professional photographers in the market. Notice how the question states 'creative professionals'. Abstract. Could be anyonee.

Okay, the rise of the digital cameras may also affect videography professionals..which are also photography professionals.. hmm. Excuse me for my uncertainty, I just needed to do some lateral touching around the question before zero-ing in on my choice, Instagram.

Okay this just dawned upon me, if there were more people uploading their data from their little digital cameras, somehow it would give professionals more inspiration and ideas from the varieties of photos that are immediately shared on social networking or photography sites. These opens up a whole new library which they could get their ideas from, not only photographers but all creative professionals alike.

They could do some data mining from these digitally taken photos and therefore enhance their professional business. Companies could observe the behaviors of their customers to reduce costs and plan for future promotions and deals. For example, clothes boutiques? People on Facebook take photos of their outfits and call them 'OutFit Of The Day' aka OOTD and post them up. (people actually use their mobile phones more than digital cameras now) Therefore, giving a heads up on what the target audiences really want in their woad robe. As for creative professionals, these work the same way like.' what effects should come up next', or 'what design should be best implemented on a product'.

Photographs, do paint a thousand words. And with millions of them, they paint billions. Just enough info for all creative professionals to take advantage of.

Will be brainstorming on PhotoShop and Instagram in my next post.