OUAN501 - COP2: Censorship & "Truth"

OUAN501 - Censorship:

In our lecture on Censorship, we covered:

Notions of censorship and truth, the indexical qualities of photography in rendering truth, photographic manipulation and the documentation of truth, censorship in advertising, and censorship in art and photography.

To begin with, we looked at various images of very tame and non-offensive landscapes, taken by a photographer named Ansel Adams. The idea of this was to slowly ease us into the idea of the lecture, rather than showing us explicit images of war and pornography straight away. The images were titled "Aspens", showing some rather beautiful forests of trees. However, even the very natural beauty of these images were distorted and the truth of reality was soon scrapped when we discovered that Adams had in fact created duplicate images from one negative using different exposure times and techniques in order to produce a different effect on the final outcome each time. We will never really know what original, pure and unadulterated reality he captured without being told as so much has been done to alter the lighting, create the illusion of different weather and seasons and so forth.

By starting with something very simple and covertly altered, we were able to see that it's not just images of scantily-clad women that get Photoshopped; nature does too and is usually less obvious. We saw images of Stalin that had been edited to his taste of who he wanted stood next to him in the images - which proves that editing was happening way before the era of Photoshop and computer software's abilities to manipulate reality.

Censor:

A person authorised to examine films, letters, or publications, in order to ban or cut anything considered obscene or objectionable

To ban or cut portions of (a film, letter or publication)

Treffry, D. (ed.) (2001), Paperback English Dictionary, Glasgow: Harper Collins

‘Everybody everywhere wants to modify, transform, embellish, enrich, and reconstruct the world around him – to introduce into an otherwise harsh or bland existence some sort of purposeful and distorting alleviation' - Theodore Levitt, The Morality of Advertising, 1970

Again, we looked at Sophie Dahl's advert for Opium, which of course was simply turned 90 degrees as a means of making it "less sexual" which seems quite odd to me as the fact that a naked woman groping her breast, showing a nipple, and giving off a facial expression of ecstasy apparently isn't sexual enough for authorities to wave the red flag - turning the posture vertically apparently fixed this!

Child exploitation was even explored in this lecture and how even now we see images of - what was once thought to be innocent - naked children's photographs being taken by parents which over the past decade has been cracked down on more as a result of child sex offences and the simple idea that whose right is it to distribute naked photos of a child, even if you are their parents!? Of course, we all have those embarrassing images from the family album of us running around naked as children, and most see that as an innocent way of keeping memories. But if those images were to be shown publicly in a gallery as supposed "art", is that wrong? I certainly think so as it is against the child's will and despite them maybe being too young to give an opinion, you still wouldn't. It's morally scarring for a child who grows up knowing the world has seen what was supposed to be their modesty. 

Even paintings dating back to the 1500s (Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time) depicted nudity of children - a sexual moment between the child and mother is also shown! - however as it is painted and not a physical representation of reality, is it seen as more artistic and therefore not obscene in any way? A while back I watched an animation called "The Hat" of which also featured a child being exploited and her memories of that as she is grown up and dancing in a strip club. That is seen as art and although was shocking, wasn't censored or banned as it wasn't real. 

The Miller Test (1973) makes three points to evaluate against to determine whether a piece should be censored:

Whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

This lecture indeed made me question whether what we see in the media is real. How much has reality been distorted and manipulated in a way that could be seen as propaganda, false advertisement or simply unreal for aesthetic reasons? Who needs to be protected - the artist, viewer or the subject? Or are we all just taking everything too far and getting offended over petty reasons? 

OUAN501 - COP2: Globalization & Sustainability

OUAN501 - "McDonaldization":

The term "globalization" refers to the ever-growing dominance of Western culture and society. It claws its way into our social, economic, and political lives as well as our culture. Many deem this "Americanization" to be suffocating our world, I completely agree with this and see our constant sucking-up to Western culture to be problematic for our traditional values, individuality as nations, and self-respect. I can sympathise partially with the Islamic State's hatred for the West, as with the spread of American popular culture, mindless consumerism, and tacky television shows littered with sex, violence and bad language, there is no wonder why the West is deemed as uncultured and a threat to our heritages.

Less on my rant-filled opinions however, globalization as a definition can be broken down into two main segments: Capitalist and Socialist. Taking plenty of notes from our lecture, here are quotes from the presentation:


"Socialist

The process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones. It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces."

"Capitalist

The elimination of state-enforced restrictions on exchanges across borders and the increasingly integrated and complex global system of production and exchange that has emerged as a result."

My hatred for so many of the points raised in the lecture are due to my thoughts of society becoming less and less authentic and true to its heritage and history, and more and more like duplicates of every average American celebrity. Thanks to the brainwashing we get from the media, which is heavily run by giant U.S corporations, we are made to think and act a certain way. We are becoming more superficial by the year and with globalization creating clones of everything Western (The McDonalds down the road will be every bit as similar as the one across the globe), our originality and traditional values as individual cultures and nationalities seems to be washed away by the flood of booming business.

‘American sociologist George Ritzer coined the term “McDonaldization” to describe the wide-ranging sociocultural processes by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as the rest of the world’ - Manfred B. Steger, Globalization: A very Short Introduction, page 71

Globalization however can and will receive my praise. Technology as an example is ever-growing and has dominated the globe phenomenally. It has allowed to banish space and time as we know it, allowing us to communicate with someone thousands of miles away at the touch of a button. What may have taken weeks to send a letter now only takes a second. Globalization has done good by our planet from that aspect. 

‘As electrically contracted, the globe is no more than a village. Electric speed at bringing all social and political functions together in a sudden implosion has heightened human awareness of responsibilty to an intense degree’ (1964: p.5)

Globalization can be looked at in two ways; as a centripetal force (bringing the world together) or as a centrifugal force (tearing the world apart). I believe that there is no black and white when looking into this, and there will always be problems with some parts of the world no matter how well the global spread means by it. The problems with globalization are as follows: sovereignty (challenges ti the idea of the nation-state), identity (challenges who we are and our heritage), and accountability (challenges who runs what, our forces and organisations).

I found it amusing how globalization was mentioned throughout the presentation using the American "z" in place of an "s", which would be deemed incorrect by my standards as we're British. I think it was a very clever play on how Americanization has wormed its way even into our language, despite British English existing way before American English (which in my opinion shouldn't even exist - it's just the U.S' poor attempt to be separate from us while at the same time trying to conquer us with media, business and rubbish.

On the note of becoming superficial, sadly it doesn't stop at clothing. There are even products sold in countries where the nationalities have darker skin that allow them to "whiten" and bleach their skin to look more like TV stars. That is terrifying and makes me feel that the U.S is pressuring people to look a certain way. After all we have been through throughout the ages, there is still this notion that white people are superior. That is wrong.

Globalisation (yes, with an "s"!) doesn't just stop at Americanism and isn't all that bad. It is actually means of distributing ideas of sustainability and how to look after our planet, rather than destroy it. So, although I may be putting down one aspect of it, I praise it for at least being able to bring to the world's attention that we do not own this planet, we are merely inhabitants of it. We need to keep it going for future generations and be fair to everything that lives on it with us. This also ties into "Ecologism" - a term coined by our lecturer himself - a lovely little ideology that everything that exists on this planet is of equal importance to humans. Everything is about money, appearance and materialistic values instead of actually caring for each other and what is around us. Ecologism is nice. It is effectively a means of abolishing hierarchy and bringing the world together. A centripetal force. This lecture was fantastic and taught me a lot about how (sadly) the world works. It was nice to think that maybe it shone a light over people's ignorance that we really are being controlled and brainwashed, and to essentially be free, we need to wake up, and take control.

OUAN501 - COP2: Consumerism (Persuasion, Brand, Society, Culture)

OUAN501 - Consumerism:

Our lecture on Consumerism was incredibly interesting as a whole, albeit many disagreed and saw it as a rant at the current status of society, I saw it as a good stop for a moment of thought on how our minds actually work and why we are made to believe that we "need" products through methodical means of branding rather than the actuality of simply "wanting" something to fit into society and feel accepted.

The aims of the lecture were simple: Open our minds to what is out there in terms of branding and consumerism, to learn about the links between consumerism and unconscious desires (which leads us onto Freud), and to talk not only about Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edmund Bernays, but about consumerism as social control.

It would be unnatural not to talk about Freud in all of this, and so we discussed how the way humans control their animalistic desires is through consumerism. This is an interesting theory and I very much agreed with this and saw the logic behind how we might try to control our aggression, for example, through the "control" we have over what we buy. This is only a temporary fix however and the calm after a storm will be a vicious cycle of stress, consumerism, calm, and then back to stress again. Think about the stereotypical scenario of a female having a stressful day. She may go out and decide to undertake some "retail therapy" to boost her mood. Despite it being therapeutic for her having returned with a pair of designer shoes, it is not therapeutic for credit card, hence the sinister truth and persuasiveness of consumerism.

It seems well known and active within society that those who buy designer products are seen to be more affluent and wealthy, allowing these people better social opportunities and lifestyles in general. It seems that buying something seen to be exclusive to a certain group of people puts you in with one them, and with the deployment of clever advertising showing flawlessly photoshopped models in lavish scenarios holding that soon-to-be sought after product, the masses are exposed through media to this. Society will be made to want that product, and rather than wanting it, they will need it. It seems with the expansion of media and technology, we are essentially being suffocated by corporations to believe that our lives will be infinitely better having bought their product. The face value is, that most of the products we purchase will only give us a high for the few days we actually use it...

With many thanks to the Victorian era having being the real kickstarter, society has become incredibly materialistic, which is rather sad as we're most likely not seen for talents and skills we possess, but rather what we own and how much it was.

The use of personalisation of products helps to sell. Hartley's Jam and Aunt Jemima's Pancake Flour were a couple of which we touched upon in the lecture. By branding items with family names, we feel more intimate with the seller on naming terms. We feel we can trust the brand as it gives the sense of being personal and close to us. "Jam" just feels very robotic and bland - it doesn't have the same ring to it.

Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew, was essentially the birth of Public Relations. His ideas and beliefs were based on that of his uncle Freud, which in turn allowed him to write Crystallizing Public Opinion - 1923, and Propaganda - 1928. This was the time of product placement and celebrity endorsements in order to sell. Society was being blindly subjected to products everywhere, and by using celebrities to sell was a big hit.

I agree to one extent that we are not free in Western Consumerist Society, as we are brainwashed to believe that we need rather than want in order to meet repressed desires. We are definitely not what we own and I do think that consumerism can be seen as an "ideological project". Having said this, armed with the right knowledge of where our money is going and knowing how to make informed choices on what we buy, we have as much freedom as our minds will allow us.

We do indeed need to stop mindlessly shopping and start thinking.

OUAN501 - COP2: Cities & Film

OUAN501 - Cities & Film:

In this lecture, we looked at the city in both modernism, post-modernism, ourselves in relation to the city and crowds of which we are engulfed in, the idea of urban sociology, and the city as both a private and public space.

The lecture featured Georg Simmel (a German sociologist) quite heavily and talked about how his works on the city and how it affects us. He was asked to perform a lecture on "the role of intellectual life in the city", but reversed it completely and writes about how the city affects us - a behemoth, technological mess of cultures, races, and beliefs swallowing us up! The Metropolis and Mental Life (Georg Simmel - 1903) talks plenty of this.

We talked of the development of skyscrapers throughout the ages and how many architects (Sullivan and Adler to name a few) perfected this design over many years in order to accommodate the idea of the economical and social worlds coming together and coexisting. This first brought about the creation of the Guaranty building, showing that a very public space such as shops and cafés were available on the ground area, with offices and private areas existing on the next floors. Soon after, the Carlson Pririe Scott store in Chicago (1904) was built giving a whole new lease of life to the city. Skyscrapers were to "represent the upwardly mobile city of business opportunity."

Modern Times (1936) by Charlie Chaplin looks at how the city is essentially suffocating its inhabitants with the ever-growing technological advances it is acquiring, Chaplin is depicted as a factory line worker, having to deal with such indignities as being force fed by a "feeding machine", trying to keep up with the ever-increasing speed of the assembly line, and then eventually having a mental breakdown causing him to run amok, wreaking havoc within the factory. Although Chaplin is know for his very silly and humorous works, he must have been making a serious and threatening point that one day the city we live in, the city we believe to protect us, could indeed end up killing us.

OUAN501 - COP2: Identity

OUAN501 - Identity:

Our Identity lecture took part last week, following on from Subcultures and this idea that we are able to construct who we are to a certain degree. Identity focused on the many theories surrounding what allows us to become the person that we show to the world and how these theories came with consequences - Physiognomy for example.

The theories of identity are as follows: Essentialism (the traditional approach that dictates who we are based on certain factors), Anti-Essentialism (based on a more modern idea of identity, some degree of choice), Physiognomy (based on appearance/race/ethnicity), and lastly Phrenology (a study of the shape/size of brain giving an indication as to said person's mental capabilities and personality traits).

This idea of pre-modern identity stems largely from "secure identity" - institutions such as your workplace, the church, the state, government, monarchy, and even who you married all secured your identity as a definite portrait of who you were in society. Class and social standing all played a huge role in what people saw you as.

Modern identity, cropping up around the 19th and early 20th centuries, has the issue of materialism and fashion brought in. It seems to me that the more objects you owned (be it physical, very "real" objects that you can pick up, or the objectification of a woman around your arm), you were seen to be better than those that managed without. The Victorian era was very much about the items you owned in your house, and the competition over who could own the best technology and most interesting adornments was immense.

There was also a struggle for fashion too. As the rich and wealthy strolled about in lavish clothes of silk and cotton, the poorer percentage of the population were finding new innovative ways to keep up with the trends by mass replicating the fashions of the once seen "untouchable" higher classes. This stems back to subcultures as when a trend starts off being exclusive to a certain group of people, you can guarantee that irony kicks in as the masses hijack this completely as it suddenly becomes mainstream - not so exclusive anymore! So, the act of copying other people's fashion came about roughly at this time. The rich had to constantly keep changing what they wore as to not be drowned out by the working classes. They needed to stand out! Gustave Caillebotte, and Edvard Munch both painted works that illustrate this in action.

Post modern identity came with the theory of discourse analysis, constructed by Michel Foucault. Identity is constructed out of the discourses culturally available to us. What is a discourse ?

‘… a set of recurring statements that define a particular cultural ‘object’ (e.g., madness, criminality, sexuality) and provide concepts and terms through which such an object can be studied and discussed.’ Cavallaro, (2001)



The possible discourses that have so far been identified are:

Age
Class
Gender

Nationality
Race/ethnicity
Sexual orientation
Education
Income

I'm sure there are possibly others that will spring up in the future, but where there is a means to judge people by, people shall be judged. In my opinion, everyone should be who they want to be without the fear of being classified or put into boxes with labels adhered to them. People are people, we are all the same, we all eat, breathe and defecate. We are all human. 

"I think therefore I am."  - Descartes (Discourse on Method - 1637)

OUAN501 - COP2: Psychoanalysis & Freudian Theory

COP2 - Psychoanalysis & Freudian Theory:

During our seminar on Freudian Theory and psychoanalysis, we were a shown a fabulous surrealist film by Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali of which absolutely nothing made sense. It was sick, full of unusual stuff and was simply amazing to watch. You either loved it or hated it, and due to the silliness and stupidity of the entire film, I loved it! 

The film, of course, was shot in black and white which was nice to watch for a change as your mind was forced to fill in the gaps where the colour was lacking. It was a welcome change to be able to imagine what was happening instead of being given the entire plot throughout. It starts with a completely psychotic scene of a man cutting his partner's, I presume, eye out with a shaving knife. It also ends with as much wacky eccentricity! The idea is that the film makes no sense at all, though our minds will try and find a rational explanation for what has happened, even though the creators intentionally gave it no real purpose or meaning. 

Cultural influences will manipulate our opinions and thoughts on what happened within the film, which can give for some interesting answers if you ask different generations to analyse this film. I related this to Freudian Theory easily as there was obvious aspects of fear, death and sexual desire. These are thoughts and feelings suppressed by the "id", the part of us that tried to hide our deepest, darkest thoughts and locks them up from the prying eyes and beliefs of society. I believe that we all have a sick fixation with something. We all have fetishes and desires that would be seen as taboo in society, therefore our id keeps those at bay. Psychoanalysis can be applied to many different films and animations. I plan to hunt down some interesting animations beyond my knowledge and will keep them posted!

Although I blogged about Tool's Vicarious for my other module, I still go back to this as it has strong implications of fear, death, psychological instability, and eccentricity. On the one hand, you could say it makes no sense at all, but on the other, you could interpret to however you see fit. I personally view this as a human becoming the host for a parasite, which could be the media and consumerism worming its way into our skin without us knowing, or rather us freely allowing it to do so.

OUAN501 - COP2: Subcultures

OUAN501 - Subcultures:

Although our lecturer for that session was off and couldn't make it in to the lecture, we still had a very interesting time watching a series of six short films about Fred Perry, the fashion designer, and the way he has influenced fashion throughout the decades. I thought it was a great series and really enjoyed seeing how fashion has changed and how subcultures coexisted with one another... or fought with one another!

It went through the eras and featured talks from famous people such as Phil Jupitus, giving their take on how the fashion industry changed their lives and what subcultures they fit in with at the time. The films discovered the meaning behind the Teddy Boys - the Edwardian take offs of the 1950s, rockers, punks, mods, Northern and Southern Soul, ska, skinheads, scooter boys, ravers, Brit Pop culture, indies, and the legacy of house/acid music. I found that a lot of subcultures were heavily tied in with music, and although it is considered that there are no more original subcultures out there as most are either revived in some form or another, we still have groups such as emos, goths, chavs and all the rest in between that still conform to some extent or another.

However, subcultures used to be more than just what you wore and what music you listened to. Although most derived from genres of music and the people that listened to such, a lot of subcultures tried to at least have an impact on society in some way or another. Be it through political stance (punk/anarchism), beliefs, equality, economical factors (skinheads/working class) and so forth. Nowadays, the chance to change the world is in all of us, but few really have the drive to do it. Teens are getting lazier, the government is getting more controlling and there's little we seem to want to do about it... This is probably why we consider there to be no "real" subcultures anymore!

All in all, I find the idea of a subculture in itself very contradictory as you try and be different and stray from the norm only to popularise something "new". Consumerism gets a sniff of the new "trend" and sells it to the public who then abuse this by conforming to what was seen as unusual and unique, without understanding of what the cult actually stood for in the first place or why it was formed. It thus become "fashion" and dies out as it becomes mainstream.

OUAN501 - COP2 - Analysis Exercise: Bottle & The Dog Who Was A Cat Inside

OUAN501 - Analysis Exercise:

During this week's seminar, we looked at two rather interesting animations that contrasted in so many ways yet shared very similar themes. Bottle, by Kirsten Lepore is a stop motion animation shot on two beaches, both of which have opposing climates - one is covered in snow, the other a very warm-looking, sandy beach. The animation starts out by showing us a very blank, emotionless sandy character with little detail. Despite all this however, he is full of character and life and is a very loveable part of the animation.

He finds a bottle on the shore of which contains some snow, indicating that someone or something sent this from afar. He sends the bottle back containing some sand as a hint to the type of beach he is residing on. This backwards and forwards action carries on throughout, each sending the other bits from their beach until eventually both are adorned in treasures which are fashioned to distinguish them as male and female. This is a very critical scenario as it could relate to the way people fashion or even groom potential partners over the internet to look a certain way when the sinister reality is that they look completely different. Through the media, you are led to believe that reality is completely different, superficial.

However, when the two finally decide on meeting, they literally go from the ends of the Earth to get that moment of happiness they've been waiting for. Sadly, the struggle proves too much as all their adornments fall off under the ocean of which they've been crossing only to leave them as the sandy and snowy blobs they once were. This correlates with social media and internet dating once again as meeting in person is completely different to what we perceive ourselves to be online. In fact, online you are able to fashion a personality for yourself and act in a manner that may be very untrue to who you really are in person. I think Bottle might seem "cute" and "romantic" on the outside, but underneath are quite deep messages regarding who we see ourselves.

The Dog Who Was A Cat Inside tells us a very different story, still sticking with the theme of identity. This animation, by Siri Melchior, a Danish animator, has a very cartoony style of which seems very harmless and suitable for children to watch, Like Bottle, the innocence of it on the exterior makes it a very entertaining watch and seems harmless if you intend to watch without picking at the strings trying to find the pragmatics behind it. The audience may be very wide for both animations, as children and adults alike would find both very amusing and appealing. However, in terms of themes and this idea of identity, Bottle may be seen to be less offensive to some as The Dog Who Was A Cat Inside...

The Dog (for short) is a rather wacky-looking tale of a dog with, well, a cat inside its body. The title gives this one away! It seems more logical that the dog is the dominant species of which the cat, the submissive, is contained as dogs are seen to be more powerful creatures. These two animals were probably used as for one, more people can identify with their many quirks and characteristics, and also they are very opposite in the way they stereotypically behave. They are also seen to be quite volatile when in each others' presence which is suitable for this animation as all they seem to do is fight with one another to get heard.

The setting seems to be a very Parisian-like city, with a small replica of the Eiffel Tower in the background. This could be seen as significant as Paris is known for being the city of love, which is ironic considering the two "personalities" are constantly battling it out for dominance. Albeit being aggressive throughout, eventually the pair put their differences aside and learn to coexist peacefully.

The Dog explores themes of identity in a rather different way to Bottle. Where Bottle could be seen to acknowledge false identities, as does The Dog, the Bottle features ideas of social media, how we are perceived against how we want to be perceived, and distant relationships based on false appearances of one another. The Dog may be seen as unsuitable and offensive to some as it appears to deal with deeper topics. Although the animation is quite broad and unapparent, some could argue that it covers a range of issues such as transgender struggles, gender identity, and mental health. I personally saw this to be conveying Schizophrenia as a constant battle with oneself is a difficult time to have to go through. Luckily, there was hope for the dog and cat which is an optimistic outlook on dire events. Bottle was not so optimistic.

The two animations were very successful in the way they were directed. It was very apparent as to the topics that were covering, and they both shared identity as a common theme. Despite the two contrasting endings, they were very entertaining and could be taken as lighthearted fun if this were shown to any audience, particularly children.

OUAN501 - COP2: The Gaze and The Media

OUAN502 - COP2: The Gaze and The Media

This year's first lecture focused on The Gaze and The Media of which feminism was a heavily used theme. "Men act and women appear. Men look at women, women watch themselves being looked at." - Berger

The Gaze is very prominent in many paintings, photographs and other media sources. It explores how the gaze of the audience can either be challenged or coyly averted in innocence or dismissal by the woman/man in the image/film. Sophie Dahl's advert for Opium, the fragrance (of which I wear ironically!) by Yves Saint Laurent, was actually deemed too sexual as her face when the image was presented horizontally didn't actually meet the audience quite in the right way as when presented vertically. This minor change to the advert might seem small, but more of her body seems exposed,(which was looked down upon) to the viewer because of the angle it was shot, when turned horizontally. Your eye is drawn more to her face, the "apparent" intention for the piece despite all the flesh on show when vertical.

the Birth of Venus from 1863 albeit having plenty of nudism on show is actually perceived as very innocent and naive. she is venus, the Goddess of love, benevolent and pure. Her arm is shielding the gaze of the audience almost even playfully as she lies back in - to me - a very seductive manner. The way we perceive an image and whether or not it is deemed fit for public viewing depends on a number of things, one major role being the gaze.

Many modern adverts actually work on normalising the display of nudity in society with models often wearing skimpy clothing, if not barely anything at all! The gaze of models now are more often challenging that not. This was very rare for the gaze to be challenging the audience many centuries ago as women were made to look pure and almost non-sexual/dominant. The gaze was often very passive. 20th/21st century media often shows an aggressive pose in an attempt to be overtly sexual.

A group of women who are known as the Guerilla Girls attempted a campaign against nudity in the media and women just being seen as sexual objects. If women are seen as sexual objects in the media, a very false and unreal realm, then many might see this as a means of abusing women in the way the media does in reality. This then leads to sexism and abuse on a very real level which can devastate many women. It doesn't just happen to women though, men often get a bashing from the media too.

In a Dolce and Gabbana advert, there are numerous men challenging the audience with aggressive gazes and stances all making the effort to almost intimidate the audience. They are all very masculine and seem to work by using this masculine, muscular appearance by promoting this product (underwear) to men who want to look like them. Men are also seen as sexual objects and sexism is equal on both sides despite many protesting tat women are solely the victims of the gaze in media.

OUAN401 - Context of Practice: Final Idea

OUAN401 - Final Idea:

Fraktur starts by crawling proudly onto the screen. He then bigs himself up and grows and stretches to show off his power and influence on German propaganda. As he grows, he also bounces a little, but not too much as he has a stern and abrupt personality. He squashes and stretches a little to show how "big" he is and as if he wasn't flaunting his position enough, he pulls out of nowhere (Tom and Jerry influence here) a nazi flag and swings it around a little.

As this is happening, a few planes scatter across the frame and move to the right, coming off the screen. Fraktur is feeling pretty happy with himself up until big, bouncy Bauhaus catapults wildly onto the screen and pushes arrogant Fraktur into a corner. He then shrinks, leaving Bauhaus towering over him as Fraktur cowards in the corner. Bauhaus is very jiggly and wiggly as she has a happy, prevailing personality. She's happy as she is the font of freedom, of a new, modern Europe, a modern Germany.

Bauhaus then extends a foot from her body and kicks Fraktur off the screen. She then struts to the centre of the frame and gives a jolly thumbs up. Victory.

OUAN01 - Context of Practice: Practical Initial Ideas

OUAN401 - Initial Ideas:

In order to start creating my practical animation for the context of practice brief which included an essay, I first had to gather some ideas and plan out what I would animate and what subjects and themes I would talk about. I wanted to relate my animation to my chosen essay subject in some way so in the end I chose the theme of propaganda and typography for my animated response.

Firstly, I thought about a small caricature of Adolf Hitler silently narrating the animation by using facial expressions. hand gestures and body language to show whether or not he liked the fonts in question. I chose to use the two typefaces Fraktur and Bauhaus for the response as they were both very controversial and served a huge purpose in propaganda/social cause at the time. They both almost competed against each other with Bauhaus depicting a modern, more free Germany (and Europe) and Fraktur being used as a very traditional, frighteningly beautiful font in order to represent Hitler's rise to power.

One of my ideas is shown below.

 

I started thinking about how I could make the animation more obviously related to war. A lone tank rolled across the frame leaving Fraktur in its tracks. The last letter evolved into a turret, soon firing a turret of which exploded and left a fact behind. Hitler then gave a thumbs up to show his love for Fraktur. I wasn't so sure about this idea as it was too literal and wasn't creative enough. It didn't have any "wow factor", so I came up with a few better ideas and finally settled on this... (See next blog post)