For Monday, choose one of the pairs of images below (if you want to talk about the Kate Moss Calvin Klein ad and its parody, refer to the last post for the images), then answer the following questions:
1.) What do the images have in common? (Consider such things as composition, lighting, framing, subject matter, color, argumentative technique, etc.)
2.) How are the images different? (Consider these same issues, but also think about the idea of PARODY. The Adbusters image in each set of ads is a parody of the original, so think about how this dynamic works).
3.) How do these images relate to Berger's notions of "envy" and "glamour" (which he defines in Chapter 7 of Ways of Seeing)?
For help with comparison/contrast writing, see pages 127-132 in Writing and Revising.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Camel and Joe Chemo ads
1. These two advertisements have a lot in common. First, they both use a camel character as the main focus of their ad. The character is placed in the middle of the screen and the body language and facial expressions of the character are what conveys the argument of the ad. He looks proud because of the way he is sitting on the bike and also has a smirk on his face.
2. The two images also differ greatly in certain aspects. In the Camel ad, the character is portrayed as a cool, powerful person by the use of the sunglasses, leather jacket, and motorcycle. The Joe Chemo ad shows the character as someone to be pitied. They show this by having the character appear to be bald and bags under his eyes. Also they show him barely being able to hold himself up and a sad, painful expression on his face. The Camel ad is darkly lit which makes the character seem like a kind of outlaw. The second ad is brightly lit which I think is trying to resemble a hospital wing. The second ad parodies the first by implying the effects of what will happen if you smoke. .
3. The first ad relates to glamour because it glamorizes smoking and the fake lifestyle that comes with it. It makes the viewer envy the character and want to be just like them. The second ad is parodying the first and showing the effects of becoming a smoker. It is showing the true lifestyle as compared to the fake one that the original ad is implying.
Obsession for Men/Women
1. These advertisements have the same dark composition. The main subject of each ad is a woman. The woman is "naked" in the Obsession for Women, whereas Kate Moss is "nude" in the Obsession for Men ad. Kate Moss's naked body is put on display for fantasy, whereas, the second ad features a woman who is naked; the reality of her obsession, who she is is what is protrayed in the photograph.
2. These ads also differ in some aspects: Kate Moss is displayed in a provocative pose with an innocent look to her face. The second ad features a woman in a hunched over position; she is holding herself almost as if she is trying to keep herself together. Kate Moss is facing the camera (male audience), whereas, the second ad shows the woman with her back to the camera; her audience is her addiction, she faces the toilet.
3. The first ad glamourizes the standard ideal of beauty. Kate Moss is a thin woman who "should" be emulated by all women in order to stay in the loop. The second ad refers to envy. Women are born into a double standard. We can neither be too thin or too fat. The woman is envious of the images of women in the media, so in order to attain that image herself she compromises her own body.
Camel and Joe Chemo ads
1.Both of these images contain the ‘Joe Camel’ character. There are drastic differences in the messages being given though. The first is saying that it’s cool to smoke, and that smoking makes you look like a macho motorcycle rider. The second image shows the same camel in the hospital, clearly dying, because he smoked cigarettes. The lighting is also different, one seems dark and like it’s the night time, the other seems really lit up, like a hospital. The colors are of similar shades, but or differing lightness and darkness. The darker the image the cooler and more ‘badass’ it looks.
2.The first image shows the perception of smoking that the public is given. It’s often made to seem like the cool thing to do, and that if you aren’t smoking, you are the odd man out. The second image shows what actually happens everyday to people that smoke, cancer. One is a fantasy world; the second is the real world.
3.Only the first image contains envy and glamour. The camel looks so cool on his motorcycle and leather jacket. The image is portrayed at night so we can only imagine what he is going to be doing that night. The second image is definitely not presenting envy or glamour. No one would ever dream of envying someone who has cancer and is in the hospital. Cancer in no way portrays glamour. Cancer patient lose their hair, and many lose their life.
Obsession for Men/Women
1. The two images both focus around a woman who is unclothed. Each photo is also presented to the viewer in black in white, however the second image has more of a sepia tone. Each ad uses contrast to draw attention to the most important feature/statement of the ad. In the first image there is stark contrast between the couch and Kate Moss drawing attention to her naked body. In the second image there is a distinct contrast on the woman’s body near her spine that draws attention to how skinny and fragile she appears.
2. The first ad uses sex to sell its product and its most likely targeting men. The second ad lacks the sexuality presented in the first to help get its message across that women become obsessed with their body images as a result of ads like the Calvin Klein one. In the first ad Kate Moss is looking towards the camera. She looks as if she knows she is being seen (by a male audience) naked. The second ad presents a woman in a hunched over pose with her back facing the audience. She is not aware she is being seen and seems to be concentrating more on the toilet in front of her and how she believes it will help her body become what males fantasize over as presented in the first ad.
3. The first ad glamorizes the idea of beauty for women. It is glamorous because it makes women envy the woman who is presented in the ad. The ad makes women feel as if they must look like the woman in the ad in order to be beautiful. The second add displays envy. The ad illustrates how women may feel in relation to the ad. The second ad shows how the woman in this ad feels like she needs to throw up in order to become like the woman presented in the first ad.
Camel/Joe Chemo Ads
1%2) The most obvious of the similarities between these two images is Joe Camel as the center of both, although they’re pictured differently. There aren’t many other similarities that are too noticeable. The differences are much easier to point out. The lighting is different in that the first one is much more dark and ‘cool’. The subject matter is similar because they both involve Camel cigarettes. It’s also different because in the first image Joe Camel is pictured on a motorcycle, wearing a leather jacket, with dark sunglasses on implying that smoking is the cool thing to do. The second image, Joe ‘Chemo’ rather than ‘Camel’ is pictured as being very sick and kind of hunched over in a shy, unconfident matter. The second is much more realistic because there’s a much greater chance smoking will have negative effects on the smoker, rather than make them cool and confident. The owners of Camel are simply trying to sell their product.
3.) The first image really relates to the ‘envy’ and ‘glamour’ notions in that it glamorizes smoking and makes the viewer envy how ‘cool’ Joe Camel is. This ad tries to convince whoever’s viewing it to start smoking to be like him. It makes smoking look much more glamorous and without consequences than it actually is. I think this ad is the least convincing of all four. It could be because I don’t smoke but it seems a little absurd to me that there argument for what is cool is portrayed as a camel on a motorcycle.
1.) What do the images have in common? (Consider such things as composition, lighting, framing, subject matter, color, argumentative technique, etc.)
a. For Image One, the original and adbuster ad have a few things in common. Joe the camel is the focus or center of the ad. Both Joe’s are shown with blue on or shown in bright lighting. Even with common factors, they both argue drastically different things. First ad, argues that if you smoke camel, you can look attractive like Joe in the ad. The adbuster ad, argues that you will unhealthy possibly with cancer (Joe Chemo).
2.) How are the images different? (Consider these same issues, but also think about the idea of PARODY. The adbusters image in each set of ads is a parody of the original, so think about how this dynamic works).
a. The images are quite different in the portrayal of Joe and so are the arguments. Within the original ad, Joe the camel is shown sitting on a motorcycle. He is wearing a blue-black shiny leather jacket, sunglasses. Joe the camel also has a pack of camel cigarettes and a cigarette in his mouth. Joe the camel looks healthy, tan, and attractive. The lighting is dark with blue-green shades in the background. The adbuster shows Joe in a different light. His new name is Joe Chemo. Joe Chemo is shown in a blue robe hold an iv cart. He is framed closely, so that the viewer can see Joe Chemo’s pale skin and sad eyes. The sunken eyes are looking directly at the viewer. Behind Joe Chemo, there are three other camels who look just like him.
b. The original ad, argues that smoking Camel cigarettes is something that is cool, attractive and acceptable. The adbuster ad disproves this by showing the effects that may happen from smoking. By naming Joe the camel Joe Chemo, the chemo part of the name is short for chemotherapy. This implies that the effects of smoking could be cancer. They also show Joe Chemo in an unattractive light.
3.) How do these images relate to Berger’s notion of “envy” and “glamour” (which he defines in Chapter 7 of Ways of Seeing)?
a. For the original ad, the technique is glamour, and envy. The ad argues that smoking leads to a glamorous life style, but it leaves out the consequences. Joe looks attractive with the pack of Camel cigarettes in his hand along with the cigarette in his mouth; he is to be envied. The adbuster, portrays the complete opposite by exposing the effects of smoking.
The Smoking Ads:
1. Both ads share the well known character of Joe Camel though the second one seems to be a glimpse into his future as Joe Chemo. Both of the pictures put the camel at the center of picture to make sure the focus is on him. Both of them try to portray the life of a smoker.
2. The two pictures have a lot more differences than they do similarities. The first picture is dark (possibly outside a club) making the camel stand out against the darkness. The second one is much lighter (in the hospital) though still has the camel standing out against the brightness. The first one is portraying Joe as "cool." He does not really have an expression as if he did not even care that anybody was looking at him. He is sitting on his motorcycle, wearing a leather jacket and sunglasses, and as I said before, possibly outside a club or bar of some sort. The second picture is much much sadder. Joe is no longer "cool." After many years his lifestyle seems to have caught up with him. His jacket is replaced with a hospital robe, his sunglasses with bags under his eyes and a loss of hair, and his bike with an IV. The ad shows what the future holds for smokers.
3. The first ad is all about glamour. Joe is portrayed as "cool" and is obviously supposed to be envied. Even his name is generic and allows the viewer to try to envision his or herself in place of the camel. I cannot think of a way for either glamour or envy to apply to the second ad. The only would I can come up with is pity.
Joe Dust
McDonald's Ads
1.) What do the images have in common? (Consider such things as composition, lighting, framing, subject matter, color, argumentative technique, etc.)
Both images have ronald as the main focus of the ad at the center. They both have nothing else but ronald, not even the McDonald's logo, since ronald is such a well known icon. The coloring and lighting, are very simple and not too distracting, it's almost hard to notice. In the actual ad, it shows ronald excited and happy-go-lucky. In the parody, it shows ronald a little more surprised and nervous.
2.) How are the images different? (Consider these same issues, but also think about the idea of PARODY. The Adbusters image in each set of ads is a parody of the original, so think about how this dynamic works).
The two ads are not that incredibly different in comparison to the other ads. In the first one, it shows ronald all happy and jumpy, having a good time because those tasty burgers. In the parody, it shows ronald confused and nervous with the word grease covering his mouth. I think the word 'grease' symbolizes censorship in that ronald never brings up the biggest concern about his burgers, the grease. This implies that eating these fatty burgers will not make you happy and joyful, but fat.
3.) How do these images relate to Berger's notions of "envy" and "glamour" (which he defines in Chapter 7 of Ways of Seeing)?
You can see some envy in the first ad because it shows ronald in the best mood of his life and with opening arms, representing the message that he wants YOU to be just like him. It's like saying 'I know you're not happy, so come on down to McDonalds so I can give you this tasty burger and you can be happy again!' I don't see any glamour in the ad however, because the ad doesn't glamorize burgers or the act of eating burgers.
Cigarette Ads
1. The two ads both use Joe Camel as their subject. The character is centered in the shot and is the main focus of attention. His facial expressions in particular are what draw the viewer into the ad.
2. The differences in the two ads are stark. The first, original ad, has a dark lighting, Joe Camel is relaxed, dressed in the typical outlaw fashion with a black leather jacket, sunglasses and a motorcycle. It gives the impression that he is cool, out on the town, involved in the night life. The parody, shows him in a brighter light, with sunken eyes and a sad, defeated look about him. I cannot tell if he is bald in both ads, but most camels are bald, so I'm guessing he is. But the second ad puts the name Joe Chemo in the front of the picture, implying he has cancer, probably lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, and he definitely cannot go out on the town or ride his bike anymore.
3. The first ad, makes smoking look cool. It is trying to cater to the "rebel in all of us", go out on the town, be a badass, light one up. The glamour is in the nightlife, it is trying to say if you want to go out at night, and look good while doing it, you should smoke. It wants you to think it is ok to live that lifestyle. It envokes envy, making you feel like you want to be that person, you want to be cool like him. He goes out, has fun, its glamorous, you should envy how cool he is and how much fun he has.
Rachel Post
1.) What do the images have in common? (Consider such things as composition, lighting, framing, subject matter, color, argumentative technique, etc.)
Both images portray naked women. The two “Obsession” images are both grayscale. I think the original ad was put in grayscale in order to give it a sense of dignity, and less like pornography, and the Adbuster followed suit, in order to parody it.
2.) How are the images different? (Consider these same issues, but also think about the idea of PARODY. The Adbusters image in each set of ads is a parody of the original, so think about how this dynamic works).
Whereas the original image is supposedly portraying the ideal body (which men are supposed to want and women are supposed to want to have) the parody portrays a woman who has given into these pressures, and has become bulimic in an attempt to live up to society’s ideal. The first is supposed to be sexy and provoke envy and glamour, and the second is almost painful to view, and provokes pity and helps women see that the “perfect” body is seldom healthy.
3.) How do these images relate to Berger's notions of "envy" and "glamour" (which he defines in Chapter 7 of Ways of Seeing)?
The first image provokes envy from both men and women. Men want the woman and women want to be the woman. Envy, according to Berger, is what the spectator feels in relation to the marketing spectacle. Kate Moss’s impersonal expression certainly achieves in its goal to provoke envy from the viewer. The ad also manufactures glamour because it takes the ideal of society and applies it to the viewer, thus making the viewer envy the subject.
The parody has no envy or glamour whatsoever, which is vital to its success. The first image is also key to its success; without the original ad, the second would be significantly less meaningful. It strikes its viewers, particularly women, so strongly because it shatters all of the glamour of the first image.
What do the images have in common? (Consider such things as composition, lighting, framing, subject matter, color, argumentative technique, etc.)
Generally the parodies seem to have a brighter background symbolizing the truth being brought the light. They’re all harsh to look at and they’re all taboos or something with a negative connotation.
How are the images different? (Consider these same issues, but also think about the idea of PARODY. The Adbusters image in each set of ads is a parody of the original, so think about how this dynamic works).
The first two are parody’s of things that can be harmful and they are showing the outcome of using the product. The McDonald’s it like a summary of what people think but don’t ever say. In other words everybody know the food is bad for your health but its not something you want to think about while you are scarfing down a big Mac. The last one is jus as it says in the ad it is a reality check for the people that make the ad. In real like there are rarely men that have the whole body builder body and look that good in jus CK underwear.
How do these images relate to Berger's notions of "envy" and "glamour" (which he defines in Chapter 7 of Ways of Seeing)?
The parodies show the contrast in how ads portray their product. Cigarettes seem glamorous to smoke but have a very negative and very real negative effect. That goes as well for the vodka. As far as the McDonalds ad kids see a happy clown and that makes them want what ever he’s selling. It uses envy to lure people in. Then there’s the Calvin Klein ad that shows this beautiful man and it uses both envy and glamour to get men and female to be interested. Yeah the man wants to look good that ad almost promises that and in turn the female like it to and would probably be tempted to buy if for their significant other.
Calvin Klein – Reality for Men
1. These two images are similar in terms of subject matter because both have a man as the subject. Not the same man, but a man nonetheless. They also both focus on the male body. Both have similar lighting as well, in that the light in the image shows only what needs to be seen in order to get the point across. In the first image, the light shows the fit, muscular body and attractive face of the subject, as well as the product (Calvin Klein underwear (annoyingly tight underwear to boot)); and the light in the second image shows clearly the fat, hairy belly of the subject, but does not show his face because no one cares what his face looks like if he has a body that’s that undesirable. Both also have a blank background so that the focus is completely on the subject.
2. The biggest difference between these two images is the subject. Yes, the subject in both is a man, but it is a very different man in each. In the first one, the man is very fit, well muscled, and has a very attractive face. The man in the second picture is fat and hairy (he REALLY should not have removed his shirt...nobody wants to see that...), and you don’t see his face at all. You don’t see his face because the shock value is in his body. Nobody cares what his face looks like when his body looks like that of a gorilla without a shirt on. Another difference is in the coloring. In the first image, there is no color. It’s black and white, which is meant to make the subject more attractive (which I think it probably does) and it also makes the subject stand out more. The background is black, and the subject and product are light, so naturally the focus would be on them. The lighting in the second image is different. The color of this image is a golden-tan type color (I cannot come up with a better match, so I’m going with golden-tan). This color is very effective at showing the unattractiveness of the subject’s body. It allows the audience to really focus (no matter how much they try not to) on how bad this man’s body looks.
3. These images relate to Berger’s ideas of glamour and envy because they show an image of what “glamour” should be (first image) and that it should be envied, and then the parody shows what is not envied, but is reality anyway. The second ad shows what many men actually look like, and at the top is says “Reality for men” to help make this point. The first ad, on the other hand, shows the very attractive looking man and basically says, “this is what you should look like” and “if you look like this, people will envy you.” The message it’s trying to get across is that if you buy Calvin Klein products, you could be like the man in the image and people will envy you. The second ad mocks this by saying, “That’s what you want to look like, but this is what you actually look like. Even if you wear Calvin Klein underwear, you’re still going to look like this.” And then the creators of the ad probably laugh at you behind your back because they actually do look like the man in the first image.
McDonald’s
1.) What do the images have in common? (Consider such things as composition, lighting, framing, subject matter, color, argumentative technique, etc.)
They both feature Ronald McDonald, the mascot of the fast food chain McDonald’s.
2.) How are the images different? (Consider these same issues, but also think about the idea of PARODY. The Adbusters image in each set of ads is a parody of the original, so think about how this dynamic works).
The original ad has a view of McDonald’s whole body. The parody has an up-close and personal shot of his bust. The first ad’s center is straight. The image in the parody is at an angle. The background in the first ad is white and in the parody it is a dark blue.
3.) How do these images relate to Berger's notions of "envy" and "glamour" (which he defines in Chapter 7 of Ways of Seeing)?
The envy intended for the audience to feel is that of wanting to be in the proximity of the clown character because it looks like he’s having a good old time. Who doesn’t want to have fun? The glamour is what Ronald possesses in the first ad.
Absolut
1. These two ads are both in the center of the image, with black and white back grounds; they both have ads on the bottom that stick out to the viewer; and they both stand out as the focal point in both pictures.
2. They are different because in the actual ad the bottles in a spot light and is made to look perfect and they made absolut vodka stand out by making the lettering blue. In the parody they made the bottle crushed down and depressed looking with the ad saying absolut impotence looking almost as if drunk sloppy.
3. In the actual ad the bottle looks flaw less like it is the top liqour its in the "spotlight" and is a symbol of perfection. It stands out and draws the viewer to focus on the absolut vodka on the middle of the bottle.
1. Ronald McDonald is the main focus of both images. They both contain bright yellow and red along with Ronald’s white face paint. McDonalds is the focus of both images and the McDonalds logo is included as well.
2. The first image is light and happy. It suggests that eating McDonalds food will make you happy and energetic like Ronald. The second image is dark and almost scary. Ronald’s face paint is different with more of a scary look. Ronald’s mouth is also taped shut with a piece of tape reading “grease.” The second ad suggests that the grease in McDonalds food will make you fat and unhappy. Ronald’s mouth is covered to represent the fact that he never mentions the grease when marketing the food.
3. The first image invokes envy of Ronald’s happiness. The viewer wants to eat McDonalds food to become happy like Ronald. There is no glamour or envy in the second ad. The viewer does not want to become scared or unhappy like Ronald.
Shawn finney
1. All the images show how the company wants you to see yourself with their product. All of them are suppose to make you feel cool or like you are having fun.
2. They are different in their color schemes. Some use cool colors while others use black and white or very colorful, bright schemes.
3. They make you want to be that person or have it.
Joe Camel/Joe Chemo ads
1. The two advertisements are not very similar because they both portray two completely different messages to the viewer. They both have a main focus character, which is an animated cartoon. This is because the target audience is for younger people, or adolescence.
2. Joe Camel in the original ad is portrayed as an independent rebel, who is relaxed and cool. He is wearing a leather jacket, riding a motorcycle, and wearning sunglasses. Joe Camel is a well known icon, who always appears to be healthy and strong, which is the exact opposite of the actual affects of smoking cigarettes. He is seen as a leader, while the parody shows Joe as a follower. Joe CHEMO is balding, has worry wrinkles, and dark circles around his eyes. He is no longer hidden by the glasses, but the viewer can obviously see his look or regret. The surgeon general's warning is incorporated with the parody, and not the original. The use of machinery and color schemes are the two main differences within the articles. The original has a night time atmospere, with city lights in the back, while the parody holds a washed out hospital sense. Joe camel is in control of his motorcycle, but Joe chemo is being controlled by the IV machine. The reality of the parody reflects the REAL effects one will have from smoking.
3. The first advertisement relates to Berger's idea of "envy" and "glamour" by saying this is someone who is envied. His sunglasses suggest that envy is a one way phenomenon. YOu are unable to see him (the truth) but he is able to see you. Its selling the fake glamourous lifestyle along with the actual product. The parody doesnt incorporate these ideas at all, because that is not the purpose. There is nothing to envy about someone with serious health problems.
Post a Comment