Post-Blog: Look, America's Next Top Model isn't always a Size Zero!

After our discussion on Ms. America and Vanessa Williams and the "Means to the End" these big moments for typically disempowered or discriminated minorities in our society, America's Next Top Model came to mind. The premise is similar to that of a beauty pageant except the girls cattily compete to become America's Next Top Model on the cover of Seventeen magazine! There is A LOT to be said about representation and the presentation of class, race, and Tyra Bank's herself but I'm going to focus on three seasons ago when Whitney Sinclair, a plus-sized model, was deemed America's Next Top Model.

The Banet-Weiser article discusses the significance and the reality of Vanessa Williams, an African American, winning Mis America "this precence is understood as noncoincidental and purposeful" (127). The crowning of an America's Next Top Model who was a plus-sized model in the 10th Cycle who competed against an almost entire cast of "regular," "normal" models was a very parallel occurence. By having a winner be plus-sized, it was not only a "purely 'political' matter" (127) but it also pointed out how this was not typical beauty for AMERICA's Next Top Model but of how things were progressing.

As we discussed in lecture, beauty pageants are explicit negotiations of body and use and these women in both ANTM and Ms. America are representing the nation. ANTM is shown in 170 countries internationally and many countries have their own Next Top Model competition as well. As we are perpetuating this image of what a country's TOP model should be like, we are continuing to disempower and constrain women. Spelman highlights how Plato discusses that Beauty always goes beyond the body. Yet this show is entirely focused around the women's body and the way that it can be used to find success and for women to represent their nation proudly.

Men are never contestants as they can't be America's Next Top Model. As well, the few men on the show are almost always homosexual and extremely effeminite. The show is embracing and celebrating the female body but as Spelman says "(Plato) points an accusing finger at a class of people with a certain kind of body - women -because he regards them, the class, as embodying (!) the very traits he wishes no one to have."

So we have this idealized image of a woman. America's Next Top Model is finally not a zero! A ridiculously beautiful plus-sized girl wins who is a size 10..we have progress! African Americans can become Ms. America too! These are good in theory and in all honesty, they're pretty good things in general. I mean, progress is still progress, right? My question for you guys is where you think we should go with these performances? Do we need radical change, a complete reversal of women's representation? How can we demonstrate to the mainstream audience the falsities that exist in the representations of women? Are these pseudo-victories useless in the long-run and just reaffirming past notions or do they hold value?

Pre-Blog "A Model Idiot"

So what exactly are we looking into this week. Well from the readings, it looks like the body, the image of the body, what the body represents, and how exactly it is used to say something, commodified that it is no longer just the sole possession of the wearer of the body shape, but owned and defined by others and used by others. Although the majority of these readings focuses heavily upon women, and there is nothing wrong with that. I couldn't help but think of the movie Zoolander while reading these readings, as extremely ridicilious the movie, it does make a good portrayal of the image of the body, who has the right to define the body and what is the body used for.
For those of you who have not watched the movie, firstly, WATCH IT, secondly, to give you a short synopsis, it's about male models.The story revolves aroud three time male supermodel of the year Derek Zoolander, who is the epitome of the male figure, and his quest to save the Malyasian prime minister from himself and the evil Mugatu.
Yet, how this movie is at all related to the usage of the body and commodification of the body is that the body of these male models are put on sale in this movie and are portraying the roles that Aristotle describes about the beautiful body. How beauty is not equitable with that of men, but rather women. That beauty is to be associate with women, which thus equals evil. As we see in the reading by Spellman, "to have more concern for your body rthan your soul is to act just like a woman....the worst possible model for young men could be 'a woman...'"(pg.37). And for anyone who has seen this movie, this is quite evident.
One of the quotes to describe the feminimity portayed by beatuy arrives when Zoolander says, "Well I guess it all started the first time I went through the second grade. I caught my reflection in a spoon while I was eating my cereal, and I remember thinking 'wow, you're ridiculously good looking, maybe you could do that for a career.'" Including this and his overall feminin demeanour, the view is led to assume that Zoolander is less than a normal masculine man. Yet at the same time, Zoolander is seen as expendible because He is used as the perfect model/assassin, excuse me, assassin/ model, an expendble agent chosen to kill the Malyasian Prime Minister.
So my question posed here is, why is beauty automatically associated as female in gender portrays? And if you have seen the movie, how is beatuy viewed as powerless? Is a prerequisit to be beauty is to be illogical?

Post-Blog: I WANT MY MTV BACK....Where did it go!!????

"Video Killed The Radio Star" (1981).........Reality Star Killed The Music Video Star? (2010)

In our last class discussion, we briefly discussed the new programming that MTV has been using for awhile now, which consists of mainly reality shows and less music...which is confusing because doesn't MTV mean Music Television???

Anyways, what started off as a great discussion of Jhally's article about control and ownership, I wanted to allow everyone to voice their thoughts, opinions, memories, about this new programming that MTV is showing their audiences. Speaking of audiences, how do we control this new programming. I find it odd that people are constantly complaining about how MTV is not how it used to be and how no one watches it anymore, but someone has to watch Jersey Shore a lot in order for the show to pop up when I Googled "MTV culture" ($10,000 per episode, really?). If we are going to talk about the relationship the between ownership of a particular culture and the audience, we have to think about what makes popular culture...what is considered cool?

Although a group of people may dislike the new programming on MTV, we must remember that MTV shaped an entire culture as a result of their shows that pre-dated Jersey Shore (Real World, TRL, Yo! MTV Raps, Cribs). This goes along with who really owns the media/MTV?? I hypothesize that WE own the media, and media outlets like MTV are reliant on what WE want to watch and how WE own and produce our own culture.

Take a trip with me down memory lane...MTV then, MTV now..feel free to post some more videos so we can all reminiscence about the MTV that we love in your comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VVvK7pNgYY&feature=related (MTV First Launch)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np8ibfgtzFs (Yo! MTV Raps)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BavJVe3tC6g (The Real World intros)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lduXQjJlqpQ (Total Request Live)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysXIZLslKzM&feature=PlayList&p=5314FDC514EEB25D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9 (Mariah Carey's closet on Cribs)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG5cn-NRJkQ (The Hills)

...and last but not least...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRrOD5L3as8 (Jersey Shore)


I WANT MY MTV BACK....or do we????

Culture as a Concrete Commodity - who owns it? (Post-Blog)

There are infinite ways to talk about advertising in class like ours, and I think for good reason. Advertising is the epitome of commodifed culture - in fact the industry seeks to create meanings for products that in of themselves do not have meaning. And, according to Jhally, the advertising agencies buy audiences from broadcasting, newspaper and other media outlets. So then what exactly are advertisers creating? If we, the audience, are the ones being sold then how should understand the culture of advertising? Is it culture that they are creating?

I'm not sure these questions really have concrete answers, but I'm looking forward to seeing what everyone thinks about the issue. A really interesting case to study when thinking about advertising and its role in creating culture is the Burrell advertising agency. They are known for marketing towards urban youths and African-Americans. It might be helpful to think about Burrell and their ad campaigns in relation to the questions I posed.

In our last class meeting we discussed the idea of "owning" a cultural artifact - we discussed salsa, reggaeton and hip-hop. I'd like to broaden it even more, and ask who owns culture itself. I know it sounds super meta, but I am thinking in specific terms. For instance, Burrell under the category of "African American Market" have the following caption:

"Who, while you were sleeping began to surf, eat Thai food, drive SUVs, listen to Faith Hill, stay at the Ritz, vote Republican, not to mention dominate the PGA tour, but who occasionally, still listens to Aretha Franklin and do that handshake with that bumping fists thing."

This quote is describing the African American market, and the word market here is important. Clearly, an entire demographic is understood in terms of how they consume (or how the ad agency WANTS them to consume). It might be important to note that Tom Burrell is an African American man, and the firm is known for being urban and in tune with the Black community. Does this fact change your opinion on the questions I asked at the beginning of the post? (Who creates culture, are these advertisers creating culture?) And most importantly, who owns this culture?

Here is a McDonald's ad put out by Burrell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds72jFNeLDg

I also recommend perusing their website, there are a lot of ads that I couldn't find on youtube or Google....I wonder why....

Pre-Blog: Holy TBN & the Performance of Commodified Cultural Citizenship

This week, due to an upcoming exciting class with graduate student presentations, the bloggers were given the freedom to reflect on any topic and reading that the course has presented thus far.

Doesn’t it seem like there should be things that just cannot be commodified? Rather, there has to be something in our society that does not subdue to its fate of commodification. Like religious practices, how in the world do you commodify believing in God?

Trinity Broadcasting Network has an answer! The answer! Since 1973 TBN has been commodifying the Christian faith, and now recently other faiths such as “Messianic Jewish” (Christ included, donations given separately). Yet their tactics are a bit more than turning faith into 200 million dollar annual revenue, and merchandize galore. No, TBN commodifies in a very special way.

How can you be worthy to the Lord? Donate to TBN of course! Donate now, and don't wait another second. This is what they say to the over 5,000 television stations, 33 satellites, and 100 million viewers. But there is a catch…

If you donate to TBN, a financial MIRACLE will be granted for you and your family. They repeat this miracle over and over again, “if you donate now, in the next [insert amount of days] you will be completely debt free thanks to the good Lord.” Yet, where does all this donation money go? It fuels the company, and the two very wealthy founders Paul and Jan Crouch (and of course charitable organizations?)

Going back to May Joseph’s work, cultural citizenship seems to be an active level of importance for the Christian community within and around the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Indeed according to Joseph, “cultural citizenship is a nomadic and performative realm of self-invention.” How is cultural citizenship constructed in the TBN viewer community? Viewers perform the act of faith through donation after donation, but is it only sought after because of some sort of miracle debt relief? What does it take to have cultural citizenship within this commodified Christian powerhouse? Why is it so important to perform this belonging?

Pre-blog: No More Monthly Period!

Sut Jhally’s article reminded me of a video he made with Edward Said: “Edward Said on Orientalism” (2002). If you have time and if you haven't watched this video before, I would like to recommend this because it will give you a critical perspective to view today's media and their hidden agenda.

Echoing with some arguments Jhally and Said made in the video, Jhally, in his article, states that the media is privately owned and controlled by corporations whose aim is to create costumers for their commercial products. His article struck me most is his discussion on the roles of advertisements and the relationship between advertisements and commodified culture. He cites Smythe's claim that “the principle product of media is not ideology but audiences” (49). Media cares more about the exchange value rather than the use value of the commercial products. They care about how much the products can sell rather than how the products fit our actual needs. In addition, media also provides a space for advertisers to buy “access to audiences.” Audiences are sold by the media to the advertisers and thus become commodities as well (54). Media go hand in hand with advertisers to create consumers.

One of the older blog postings includes the videos of “Target Women.” They interested me a lot and I found some others in YouTube. I'm impressed by their critical way of interpreting today's advertising culture. The advertisement of “sexless birth control” is also interesting.

Target Women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oDyCx3A6Ao

"Seasonique" commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xsnKcNgZW8&feature=related

"Yaz" commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCg1q0h1PP0

Birth control pills are taken out of the context of sex. It creates the impression that you are taking the pills not because you are sexually active and want to avoid unexpected pregnancy, but you want to live a "painless," happy woman's life. The one-minute commercials of both “Seasonique” and “Yaz” illustrate Jhally's point that the power of the visual image subordinates the messages you get from listening. What the advertisers sell are “feelings and emotions rather the products directly” (57). Look at how the women in the commercials look like: They are happy and care-free (no negative emotions like irritability and pain from period), healthy (you can stay energetic and active in outdoors activities and sports thus keep a good body shape all the time), confident and charming (look at how the women's outfit in the commercials. Also, there's a contrast between a nerdy office lady and a hotter, sexier lady in “Seasonique” commercial), and successful (you manage your work, social life, and family at ease).

Last but not least....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iISzYPZYqqI&NR=1

Watch it until the end and you’ll hear “this video is sponsored by …NO ONE!.”

(sorry, I tried to upload the videos but it didn't work. So I could only provide the links. Sorry for the inconvenience!)

Post blog: The Guru(2002) and discovering indochic

After our discussion on how the commodification of difference relies on the myth of discovery, I remembered a movie we studied in AAS pop culture.
The Guru(2002) follows an Indian man who travels to NYC to become a big star. However, he finds that it is not so easy (especially for an Indian male). He finally finds "success" in catering to the hegemonic demand for the exotic and mythical wisdom of the West's idea of Indian culture. While he knows his portrayal of "Swami Boo" (spelling?) is an inauthentic representation and a horrid continuation of the "Oriental" (a term referring to the West's commodification of the "Far East"), he finds it to be the only way to make it in America. His girlfriend (played by Tomei) eats it all up, as you can see from the trailers.
So let's take a look at both trailers. How are these marketed differently? One shows more of the storyline, but the other tends to make make fun of the cliche way in which movies tend to publicize mythical stories.

What can we gather from these trailers?
In terms of our class discussion, how is the commdification relying on the myth of discovery? Within the film and outside (in regards to us as the audience)? The characters are participating in this discovery of the "authentic", but how does this movie make fun of it? To go deeper, how does it continue it by appealing to mainstream audiences?
In terms of Ong, there is a shot of the main character being inspired by Grease. This is what inspires him to pursue stardom in America. How is the main character a hybrid? How can he be seen as flexible?
As authenticity is in a constant battle with culture being emergent, how does this movie tend to complicate it?

Post-Blog: UGG the Discovery and Authenticity!

After tonight’s discussion of the “myth of discovery,” I just couldn’t get one of my group member’s examples out of my head. The complexities of “discovering” any form of culture are worth really diving into on a deeper level. So yes, the Ugg boot is here and it’s ready to be dissected through our wonderful lens of social science power!

The Ugg boot was first really discovered by United States’ popular culture in the mid-2000’s. Even in California in our 60-degree winters, all of my peers would totally rock the boot. Everyone’s heal would be properly labeled “UGG Australia.” Yes, we discovered these boots in Australia and created them to fit our own culture, so totally hip! Yet in this process on discovery, we cannot help but dehistoricize the context of this particular boot.

Uggs were first worn by WWI aviators, at that time called “rug” boots. Later in the 1960’s, Australian surfers started to wear them in order to keep their feet warm after surf sessions. But it wasn’t until American surfers in the early 1980’s started using them that they were in the US. Further, it wasn’t until the mid-2000’s that celebrities started rocking them. But who needs all this history anyway?!

Through our “myth of discovery” of these authentic Australian boots, we have redefined their use, meaning, and belonging in the United States. Through this process of discovery, it is necessary to create a definition that fits the particular culture. For example, like discussed in class, the United States redefined the electric car to fit our agenda.

My attempt here was to parallel Wayne Marshall’s piece on the expansion and commercialization of reggaeton music. Similar to the Ugg boot, reggaeton has been widely accepted in the United States through “discovery” yet has been dehistoricized in the process. Marshall challenges the complex history of reggaeton’s origins to discuss the hybridity of culture and music.

What hybridity is represented through the Ugg boot’s history? What does it mean to wear authentic “UGG Australia” stamped boots versus its generic clone? What is so important about dehistoricizing commercial products?