Week 10 Bundle 7
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Indiana University, Bloomington *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by MajorSummer12669
C103 - The Semiotics of Advertising Week 10, Asynchronous Bundle 7 Written assignment
due Friday 10/27 at 11:59 pm
Introduction
●
Goal: Point out how easy it is to insert "non-reality" into an apparently realistic ad or
image.
Asynchronous material
●
The debate between
radical realism
and
radical idealism
may seem completely
pointless to you.You see something, you perceive that it is real, so obviously it is in fact
real
○
The nature of reality is a genuine and perplexing problem, and it extends even
into the world of empirical exact sciences.
○
Specialists in quantum physics struggle with real-world analogues to this
problem as the bread and butter of their science.
○
Physicist Brian Greene on 'The Elegant Universe'
■
This relates to the current distinction between
realism
and
idealism
because if you cannot know where a particular particle is at any given
time, only that it is in one of two equally likely places, then what does it
mean to say that there is a firm basis to reality? It also gives some
theoretical basis for the notion of the "
multiverse
", which is so
fashionable nowadays.
●
Famous provocative ad that appeared in the 1970s. It ran in Time Magazine, a news
weekly, presumably in the British edition (given that the ad promotes a British
organization): this ad shows a pregnant man, hand on his stomach, with the title or
caption being “Would you be more careful if it was you that got pregnant?” and
“contraception is one of the facts of life”.
Q1. Explain what is happening in the ad, paying attention to the intrinsic features of their ad
(what's actually there). Be specific about what is real and what is "pseudo-real"
In the 1970s
Time Magazine ad, a man is depicted in the visibly pregnant state which is biologically
impossible for CIS, emphasis on the CIS, men in the real world. This ad sort of begins to
challenge our understanding of reality. The pseudo-reality of the male pregnancy serves as a
metaphorical reminder to bring forward how there is a shared responsibility between both the
man and the woman when considering contraception. Through this ad, the line between what is
tangible and what lies in the realm of ideas is blurred to communicate a powerful social
message particularly towards men who may act more carelessly when having sex with a woman
who DOES have to worry about the possibilities of pregnancy in that situation.
●
I realize that today it is quite possible now for a person identifying and presenting as
male to become pregnant and give birth. Ignore that for Q1, as this ad appeared in the
1970s, in a quite different social and technological climate.
Q2. Would this ad still have an impact if it were run today? How would it be different, how
would it be the same?
Examining the ad from a contemporary standpoint, its implications are
multifaceted. In today's socio-culture, where we acknowledge and respect the experiences of
transgender men who can and do become pregnant, the depiction loses its initial "pseudo-real"
shock factor. Nevertheless, the underlying message on shared responsibility in reproductive
health remains pertinent I feel as it sets a perfect reminder to ALL men, primarily CIS men, that
this should never only be considered for women. While the ad's visual might not be as
“shocking” or act as “culture shock” to a 2023 audience (unless you are living under a rock),
familiarity with gender and reproductive rights, its main message still stands as a reminder of
the collective duty in understanding and addressing contraception no matter the gender.
Depending on the viewer's background and experiences, how one might receive this message, it
might vary, but the core message maintains its importance.
●
Ads can easily present a situation that defies reality. It can be subtle and hardly
noticeable, or it can be flamboyant and outrageous in its defiance of reality. Time
magazine ran an ad for itself based on this earlier ad:
○
Same image of a pregnant man but this time the caption and description states
“Text of caption facing page: it only took one insertion to make this man famous”
○
This ad attempts to take advantage of the fact that many people were familiar
with the original ad. The accompanying text on the facing page of a two-page
spread has been typed into this copy of the ad. This was an ad exhorting
businesses to advertise in Time, i.e., trumpeting how effective it is as a host for
advertising.
Q3. How does the different purpose affect the degree of reality in the advertisement?
The
objectives of the two ads frame the pregnant man with two different contexts, each influencing
the viewer's perception of reality differently. In the original ad, the visual sort of served as
commentary on gender roles and responsibilities, using the surreal image of a pregnant man to
challenge societal norms and perceptions basically saying “hey men, step up”. However, when
Time magazine repurposes this for its own promotional intent, the surreal image takes on a new
meaning, emphasizing how effective it can be to advertising. While the first confronts our
understanding of biological differences similarly to shared responsibility, the second shifts our
reality to recognize the influence of media and advertising in shaping cultural conversations as
it can be interpreted differently by everyone, especially as society constantly evolves and shifts
ideological beliefs.
●
Famous photograph taken immediately after the National Guard shot and killed four
students at a May 4, 1970 protest against the Vietnam War on the campus of Kent State
University
○
Major contributing factor to turning the general public against the war, which
eventually forced the government to end it. Sample of its social impact, a protest
song by Crosby Stills Nash & Young that was recorded and released just a short
time after the shooting. They recorded it on May 21. And an article about the
famous photograph.
○
In the widely disseminated version of the photo, a fencepost above the mourning
girl's head has been edited out.
■
Ohio by Crosby, Stills and Nash:
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear the drumming
Four dead in Ohio
Gotta get down to it, soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been gone long ago
What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Gotta get down to it, soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been gone long ago
What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear the drumming
Four dead in Ohio
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
■
The Kent State Massacre Photo and the Case of the Missing Pole: The
iconic photo from the Kent State Massacre depicts 14-year-old Mary Ann
Vecchio screaming beside the body of 20-year-old Jeffrey Miller. John
Paul Filo, a 22-year-old Kent State photojournalism student, took the
photo and received the 1971 Pulitzer Prize for it. However, it was later
revealed that the photo that had been widely circulated in major
magazines, such as Time, People, and LIFE, was manipulated to remove a
fence pole that originally appeared rising from Vecchio’s head. The altered
version of the image became the subject of significant controversy on
online bulletin boards. David Friend, Director of Photography at Life
Magazine, clarified that LIFE did not intentionally alter the photo. They
had used a version from the Time-Life Picture Collection, where someone
had previously airbrushed out the fence post. In a rush to meet a deadline,
LIFE was unable to obtain an original print from Filo, so they used the
version they had, unaware of the alteration. Interestingly, despite the
image's fame, the missing fence post had gone unnoticed in numerous
publications for 23 years.
Q4. Why would a photographer or an editor choose to modify a news photo of a real event? Do
you think the photo is more effective or impactful with the post removed? Why?
I am aware
that in photography, there's a general rule of thumb to avoid certain things, such as poles or
trees, emerging from a person's head in the foreground, as these can detract from the image's
focus. Instead, the goal is typically to centralize and highlight the subject, ensuring they are the
primary focal point without any obstructions. Capturing a person with an object directly behind
their head can create an illusion that the item is either perched atop the person's head or
sprouting from it. So it is difficult to say if there were any particular reasons besides the one I
had mentioned as to why they would remove the pole behind her head besides following a
guideline to make the subject stand out more. However I feel as though it could go both ways,
that is the fence post emerging directly from Mary Ann Vecchio's head might be considered
visually distracting. Removing it makes the viewer's focus center more squarely on Vecchio and
Jeffrey Miller. It may also seem less cluttered and feel more balanced. However, as with
journalism, authenticity is very important especially for an audience, it could make the viewers
question what ELSE is possibly altered, taking away from the “realistic” image taken.
Q5. And now for the most crucial question: do you think this modification invalidates the photo
ethically? Why or why not?
In photography, there's a general rule of thumb to avoid obstructions,
like poles or trees, emerging from a subject's head, as this can detract from the main focus.
Capturing an individual with an object directly behind them can create a misleading visual
illusion, potentially diminishing the photo's impact. From this perspective, the removal of the
pole from the Kent State Massacre image might be understood as simply complying to these
compositional guidelines, aiming to centralize the image on the emotion between Vecchio and
Miller. However, for those unfamiliar with composition and framing in relation to the principles
of photography, the alteration might seem somewhat suspicious which could bring a lot of
doubt on the photographer's authenticity, raising questions on “what else has been altered” and
so forth (even though that answer should be obvious to most, I am unsure whether this image
was controversial or not). This leads to two things, on one hand, maintaining the integrity,
historical originality, and public trust is very important in journalism. Altering such a significant
photograph, even slightly, can be viewed as misrepresenting the event, potentially losing trust
with the public. On the other hand, alternating the image merely for aesthetic purposes, and
compositional ruling without altering the direct event itself, I would argue the image's
importance still remains untouched. Minor edits, like contrast adjustments, are very common in
photojournalism, and if the pole's removal is seen in this light, it could be passed as acceptable.