Responding: to Ways of Seeing by Berger
-Berger says publicity images (advertising) never speak of the present, that they always refer to the past of the future. Is that true? Do you think so? I think that may be true in a manner of saying that they represent something to be done/bought/consumed; in that way they remind and promise. But i'm wondering if he meant something else. Is he saying they are always revoking a different time? I don't know if i see that.
-Berger mentions that we scarcely notice their impact, that we've instead come to accept. And of course that's true. But what is their total impact? It's just so massive, isn't it? I wonder if there is a bunch of comprehensive points somewhere.
-but i'd say if my interpretation of future speaking of images is true, aren't these images eternally catapulting us into the state of reaching out, even if that is simply going on to consume and seek the next thing? These images become like directives then, where the product pretends to be the goal but it's actually the images that we seek to embody.
-Berger mentions that advertising always only offers us the choice between two like products, but never the choice outside it. I'm thinking that it's not that the non-choice isn't apparent to us, but how readily we agree to consume. We do want! (But how much of it is careful and long coercion?) I bought a phone today and yeah it was your usual case and could I go without? Debatable but i don't want to!
-'The state of being envied is what constitutes glamour.' Oh I dig that statement. In the context of 'the male gaze', images would try to evoke ency of another woman due to the woman's ability to appeal to men? Who does man envy? The man who gets the woman? This evokes the second chapter of this book which suggests that women are looked at, while men look. This, in return is what the envy then.
-'Publicity is never a celebration of pleasure in itself.' Because pleasure can be found anyplace. Pleasure is also found in the current, never to be designated to a product/place. For publicity to celebrate pure pleasure, it would have to drop the suppositions it would like you to enact. (There is no other way than to actively revolt.)
-Berger is talking about how publicity is about social relations, not objects, of happiness as percieved. But what about in the context of food- specifically grocery shopping snacking type. What is a chip ad promising? Of the pleasure you derive eating it? (Well now i'm being naive.) But you don't buy a bag of chips for you to be the gaze of envy DO YOU? Is that why buying a buy can be a shameful thing? Emphasis on the 'can be' because obviously too many variable factors. I would like to think more about this, sit on it, warm my bag o crisps.
-will continue tomorrow. let me know if anyone's around!
-Berger says publicity images (advertising) never speak of the present, that they always refer to the past of the future. Is that true? Do you think so? I think that may be true in a manner of saying that they represent something to be done/bought/consumed; in that way they remind and promise. But i'm wondering if he meant something else. Is he saying they are always revoking a different time? I don't know if i see that.
-Berger mentions that we scarcely notice their impact, that we've instead come to accept. And of course that's true. But what is their total impact? It's just so massive, isn't it? I wonder if there is a bunch of comprehensive points somewhere.
-but i'd say if my interpretation of future speaking of images is true, aren't these images eternally catapulting us into the state of reaching out, even if that is simply going on to consume and seek the next thing? These images become like directives then, where the product pretends to be the goal but it's actually the images that we seek to embody.
-Berger mentions that advertising always only offers us the choice between two like products, but never the choice outside it. I'm thinking that it's not that the non-choice isn't apparent to us, but how readily we agree to consume. We do want! (But how much of it is careful and long coercion?) I bought a phone today and yeah it was your usual case and could I go without? Debatable but i don't want to!
-'The state of being envied is what constitutes glamour.' Oh I dig that statement. In the context of 'the male gaze', images would try to evoke ency of another woman due to the woman's ability to appeal to men? Who does man envy? The man who gets the woman? This evokes the second chapter of this book which suggests that women are looked at, while men look. This, in return is what the envy then.
-'Publicity is never a celebration of pleasure in itself.' Because pleasure can be found anyplace. Pleasure is also found in the current, never to be designated to a product/place. For publicity to celebrate pure pleasure, it would have to drop the suppositions it would like you to enact. (There is no other way than to actively revolt.)
-Berger is talking about how publicity is about social relations, not objects, of happiness as percieved. But what about in the context of food- specifically grocery shopping snacking type. What is a chip ad promising? Of the pleasure you derive eating it? (Well now i'm being naive.) But you don't buy a bag of chips for you to be the gaze of envy DO YOU? Is that why buying a buy can be a shameful thing? Emphasis on the 'can be' because obviously too many variable factors. I would like to think more about this, sit on it, warm my bag o crisps.
-will continue tomorrow. let me know if anyone's around!
