Culture Jamming and Pranking – Christine Harold

In Christine Harold’s “Pranking Rhetoric: Culture Jamming as Media Activism”, she discusses a movement that mocks the marketing tactics of multimillion dollar cooperations and what the media portrays to society. This method is known as culture jamming.

One of the methods of culture jamming that Harold discusses is used to sabotage these cooperations is known as “adbusters”, where these are used to make fun of ads by altering the already existent ad to communicate a completely different message.

Harold’s theory behind culture jamming is described as “an amping up of contradictory rhetorical messages in an effort to engender a qualitative change”, which strives to draw attention to whatever problem is being attacked by criticizers of the media.

Being a female reader of this article, the example that hit me at home was the female image example, and how media portrays to society the wrong idea about being thin. A critic of the media created an adbuster that featured a bulimic girl vomiting over the toilet to portray that this is what the media ia really promoting by advertising unrealistically skinny bodies. This was a pretty strong visual that Harold discussed, and even though it’s being harsh on the media, the media needs to realize their responsibility on the influence of young girls and their bodies.

Later in her article, Harold talks about the act the pranking to provoke the media and get their attention.  This can be valued as another form of culture jamming, but instead involves action to take place to portray that something is wrong, rather then just by altering images.

One powerful pranking example that Harold discusses in her article was organized by the “Barbie Liberation Organization”, where they brought attention to the issue of gender roles.  Originally, Barbie’s voice box sounded like a typical women, but the phrases programmed for her to be said, portrayed her as dumb.  One of the phrases was “Math class is tough”, giving the assumption that the creators of the programmed voice box did not view women as highly intelligent.  On the other hand, the action figure called GI Joe embodied more masculine phrases.  After the “Barbie Liberation Organization” realized these stereotypical gender roles, they decided to buy a bunch of  G.I Joe’s and Barbie’s to switch their voice boxes, to then be returned to the store where they could be bought again by everyday consumers.  Doing this brought attention to the media and sparked massive discussion regarding gender roles, which is exactly what the Barbie Liberation Organization was hoping would happen.

Designers, Watch the Designs – Donald Norman

In Donald Norman’s article, “The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”, he discusses the daily frustrations that are often faced by the average consumer due to poorly designed products, while giving explanations on how to fix these problems or to avoid these frustrations and confusions all together.

One of the examples that Norman brings up, which I believe is an excellent example since it’s used everyday by almost every person, is the door. Yet, these simple products that are designed to deliver simple tasks can be frustrating and confusing, even though all they’re supposed to do is open and close.

The first issue Norman brings up about doors is visibility. Visibility is described as what is immediately seen though the viewers eyes, and the signals that are portrayed through these visuals. For example, Norman discusses “natural signals” in his article, which are signals that are picked up by the human eye and conveys to the brain to perform a task that feels natural. To feel natural, a task has to be easy to complete, where no confusion or frustration is occurring.   Below is another example of doors that portray a good (left image) and bad (right image) design. With the good design, a user can tell which door needs the handle to be turned and which door needs to be pulled, while on the other hand the bad design does not make clear which visual means push or pull, because one visual signals two different actions.

The concept of mapping is another element that Norman discusses in his article. Mapping is the orientation and arrangement of a product, and how this arrangement can help certain tasks to be performed. One example he talks about to support his theory of the need for successful mapping that lead to easily performed and understood tasks is the telephone. Norman used the telephone to describe the problem with its “hold” feature. He mentions how many people struggle with putting the phone on hold, because they never know which buttons to press, since many buttons performed more than one task, but do not clarify what tasks they do. He uses this to emphasize the need for a product to have good mapping in order for the consumer to fully understand its features and capabilities to it’s full extent.

Norman believes that the advancements of technology should never be an excuse for poor design. With this idea, he presents the concept of the washing machine, and how many consumers hardly use all the features that are featured in the washer, because they simply don’t know how to use them. Consumers get confused and frustrated when trying to figure out how to use all the fancy functions offered on the washing machine, so to avoid the frustrations, users don’t even bother trying to use the functions.

Two other issues Norman talks about is constraints and the need for feedback. Constraints allow the user to understand what tasks they can and cannot perform with certain products. Norman used scissors to show the power of constraints, since scissors can only be used with hands and constrain a user from using any other body parts, making them fully understand that a hand is supposed to be used. With feedback, Norman emphasizes that a consumer must know or have the ability to recognize when they are performing a task right, otherwise the user will not know what is right and what is wrong when it comes to using the product.

When producing products, designers have to keep in mind that their products have to be as user friendly as possible, have excellent mapping, natural signs, constraints, provide feedback, and be self explanatory with its functions in order to be considered successfully designed.

Mapping: Conveying One Message – Edward Tufte

Mapping is important when it comes to universally understanding images. Edward Tufte explains this importance in his article, “Beautiful Evidence”, where he addresses how explanation is sometimes necessary and can make visual evidence even stronger.

According to Tufte: words, scales, and diagrams are vital when it comes to documenting evidence, as it allows the viewer to better comprehend what they are actually viewing.  By using a “universal grid of measurement”, Tufte believes that this will give more people the opportunity to greater understand visual evidence being presented.  What Tufte means by a universal grid of measurement, is a measurement that can be understood worldwide and comprehended by people from different cultures and backgrounds.

It’s important for visual evidence to convey the correct message they are trying to get across to the viewer, because without the ability to clearly convey the message of the evidence, another unintended message could be conveyed instead.  Images are universal, but their messages aren’t always universally understood.  Tufte believes that two different people from two different cultures can have two completely different readings of an image, because interpretations can vary between people.  With this problem presented, he emphasized the need for a universal measurement that all persons can understand that allows one message to be portrayed and understood, even if people are from different parts of the world.

As Tufte explains in his article, it is extremely important to include diagrams, words, or scales of measurement that can be universally understood, along with a visual evidence.  This allows a message to be more easily and clearly portrayed across to the viewer.

Below is an image that conveys a good example of mapping:

 

 

 

This is an excellent example of successful mapping, because colors are used to convey the lowest and highest rate of violence of the neighborhoods in Chicago.  Colors are universally known worldwide, and a legend is provided that explains the meanings of these colors.  By giving meaning to the colors, it clearly conveys which neighborhoods have the highest and lowest rates of crime.  The use of numbers also help the viewer point out which neighborhood is being represented by the colors.  These numbers correspond with neighborhoods next to the number on the legend to the left of the image.  Two legends are used in this image in order to clearly depict which neighborhoods in Chicago have the most violence and which do not, leaving hardly any room for confusion.

(Workshop Blog) Parodies Spark Critical Discussion – David Bennett

In David Bennett’s article, “Parody, postmodernism, and the politics of reading”, he talks about one of the earliest forms of parody, which appeared in 1923 (Bennett, 27).   Parody was mostly used to mock, which included “isolating traits and exaggerating them”, and used to “manifest fault-lines, incongruities, within a text” (Bennett, 27).

 

During the 1920’s, Bennett claims that parodying was commonly used to criticize authorial claims, while also enriching the art of reading by bringing a new form to the institution of criticism (Bennett, 29). In order to read a text as a parody, Bennett suggests that a text should be read “against the grain of prior constructions on the text”, meaning that prior expected formulas must be put aside to allow the text to be read as intended—as a parody.

Many people confuse satires with parody, and though these two forms complement each other, they are different on their own. A parody is a form of satire “distinguishable from other kinds of satire by its imitative mode”, clarifying how satirical elements are used in a parody to mock, but being satirical alone is not considered a parody (Bennett, 29).

Nevertheless, parodies are more complex, and are not merely used for imitation. According to Bennett, a parody is a text “by one writer against another” that “presupposes a complicity between the reader and the author in their critical apprehension of the way the parodied discourse misfigures reality, or it is motivated by interest extrinsic to the test for which the reader is accountable” (Bennett, 30).  The description that Bennett gives shows how the reader is more likely to develop a greater relationship and opinion of the text in regards to it’s criticism as the reader tries to figure out what the author is really saying in between the lines that are written.

Bennett talks about the “truth-value of a parody”, and how anyone who believes otherwise is wrong (Bennett, 39). He believes that mocking something is what truly sparks debate between the reader and writer, which is an important element of writing. Bennett believes that parodies lead to “considerable critical debate, notably amongst reader–response and Marxian critics”, emphasizing how parodies are just another form of criticism, which is needed spark academic critical discussions (Bennett, 40).

Parodies are an essential form of writing, because it has the power to facilitate critical decussion between the believer and the skeptic through the use of imitation to point out flaws in what is being presented.

(Workshop Blog) Parodies Better Inform – James Anderson & Amie D Kincaid

In James Anderson & Amie D. Kincaid’s articles, “Media Subservience and Satirical Subversiveness: The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Propaganda Model and the Paradox of Parody” they discuss how legitimate forms of media (media not satirized) are just simple not as powerful as satire media parody programs.  With their piece, these authors mostly focused on fairly new genre of new reports that started in 1999 called—social political parody.

Anderson and Kincaid focused on two new mass media landscapes to analyze in relation to this study called the propaganda model; where these two shows are The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. These show have become the must-trusted source of political news on television, the most admired journalist in America, and the most trusted newscasters in America (Anderson 172). Furthermore, people have claimed to be less informed on domestic and international affair than when watch anything else other than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report.

Throughout this article they questioned whether these shows were popular because they were funny, or because they were relevant, and after viewing their result from their propaganda model they came to terms that it’s because these shows are relevant to society.  In The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report their main job is to critique the overlooked aspects of politics and challenge the conventions of a traditional news report, in order for viewers “to think critically about the media, politics, and society” (Anderson 172).

In The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report they “inspire thoughts by raising questions to the audience by pretending to not have answers to the radical, yet relevant jokes about politics and new reports themselves”,   and want to “enable audiences to begin to doubt the status quo and think critically about the social structures that makes us who we are” (Anderson 174).  Yes, there may be elements of satire in parody new reports, but these elements are what make it more engaging to facilitate communication about these topics in society, whereas normal, more formal news reports often leave viewers confused and without room to question their statements, whereas the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report does.

Below is a promo of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report: