Media isn't actually a "thing." It has the same etymological root as "medium"--the size between "small" and "large" as well as "psychic medium." Media, in other words, has no real substance of its own. It's the thing that's in between speaking and hearing; transmission and reception.
By way of articles, studies, and a couple of polls and links, this blog examines the significance of media in American culture. Post your thoughts after the jump.
After reading “Dire Image: The Art of Persuasion” by Alan Robbins I had sort of mixed feelings. I do agree that images are used in everyday life to persuade or control people in some form of another. I also agree that they are very effective at doing so. However the whole story about the Nazis seemed a little narrow. The Nazis did so many different things and I felt as if Robbins was portraying that the art reform was the most powerful. I am not an expert on the Nazi regime and everything that went down but I thought there was a lot more to it than a tilted swastika with the colors red, white and black. When I hear that the Nazis indoctrinated an entire empire of people there posters and symbols were probably not the main factor. From the movies I’ve seen, there’s always a school scene showing how teachers are actually instructing the youth how the Nazis wanted and essentially converting them. Now this whole thing was less than 10 years so half of the Hitler youth did not go to war because they were too young, but brainwashing youth has an extreme effect. I’m sure the adults were brainwashed in other ways too. Men of age were drafted to go fight and their families wanted to support them, and by extension were supporting the whole regime. The Nazi art and the disposal of “Semitic” art was not the only tactic used and would probably have been far less effective without the use of the other methods. The image combines with the other methods of brain washing to create some sort of combo effect. If they didn’t draft people, there would have been far less family members having to show support. But because they did, these family members needed a way to show their support and this is where the image came in. They would display flags, go to meeting and convene; all while further spreading and increasing the effectiveness of the Nazis grasp on the people. So images are important, but there needs to be an underlying desire for the images to spark. If I draw a really cool symbol and try a start some kind of cult, I would get any followers, I need to offer an ideology that people can believe in.
When we studied Hitler back in grade school one thing that always caught my eye in the photos and videos was how big and elaborate the stages were for Hitlers speeches, and also how well the posters caught your eye. Though I wasn't around during that time and didn't know the history of how the colors and the look were chosen (or why) I feel like it still had that drawing affect on me that it did for so many other people. I do agree with the article how it talks about Hitler drawing in so many people simply by using well planned out imagery. I definitely found it interesting how the colors, placement of the swastica and even the swastica itself were picked to represent Hitler and his movement. It was extremely clever for him to select a symbol that had previously been used to signify unity, and used by such places as boys and girls clubs. If Hitler could accomplish that much through his visual stimuli as a bad guy, it makes me wonder what could have become if he used his powers for good. Maybe he could have used his great artistic ability to employ large numbers of people to do good things.
Reading “The Dire Image,” I was almost dumbfounded at how clear Robbin’s message hit me. Regardless of what any symbol means, we automatically attribute its meaning to its place in popular culture and the media. For example, I did not know that before the use of the swastika by Adolf Hitler, the swastika actually was a good symbol. Originating from the Indus Valley civilization, the symbol literally means “it is good,” that is, that is what it used to mean. What gets me is that anyone who sees a swastika automatically thinks of Hitler, WWII, and the Holocaust. It is weird to think that a symbol that was designed for the purpose to say something good, has become an infamous symbol, one that represents genocide, and a time of turmoil. The idea that is crazy to think is the fact that the swastika is not an inherently evil symbol, by any means, it is the opposite, as I mentioned before. The fact that we as a society automatically associate this symbol with Death and evil really seems to support the idea that Robbin presents. The fact that a group of individuals could view a painting in a museum, and all have diverse views and interpretations, while the swastika would have the opposite effect; One where everyone sees horror, and inhumanity. While Hitler was certainly responsible for one of the largest crimes against humanity; He was also was responsible for the shaming of a once peaceful symbol, which is now synonymous with crude markings etched into the desks that no one wants to sit at.
I definitely think that images have a strong influence on us all. It’s kind of like when you read a book then watch the movie; if you ever read the book again, the images of those characters and scenes will be in your head. It’s odd because I always knew Hitler to be somewhat of a genius but never an artist. I also never realized how much thought had gone into the Nazi symbol that we now all can recognize in a second. The shape, color, angle, and position were carefully planned to portray a certain thought much like many advertisements do today. These logos can make us believe a certain idea to be true, just by looking at a picture, without even realizing it. This goes back to images having a certain power over us that sometimes we don’t even know it. As stated in the passage, Hitler’s art was powerful it influenced the public to be enthused by it and follow his lead. Images can be so manipulative people have to be careful about what they are supporting. Robbins warns us of this at the end of the passage that we should be aware of what the images in our time are making of us. However I somewhat disagree with what he is trying to say for our own time. At one point in the passage he explains just how powerful image was back then but I don’t believe it is the same now. I don’t think one image can change everything in our lives because there are so many images around us all the time. It seems everything now has an image or logo associated with it because reading takes to long. We now process images so quickly that one symbol could start an entire movement. However I also agree if we are talking about the image of society and its expectations. Pictures are now much easier to access and they are everywhere so we are constantly shown what we are expected to look like and act like. Although I suppose images are so subtly influencing us more than I think. It’s hard to tell if I am being manipulated; whether there are images everywhere around me secretly telling me what to think or not. I really don’t know the answer.
Adolf Hitler was obviously a mastermind when it came to manipulation and persuasion, but he also had a knack for symbols. Robbins says “ the dark visionary behind almost every image produced in Germany during that time.” This really strikes me because as odd because everybody thinks of Hitler as a genius of warfare and politics, when really he single handedly created German culture as well. Not only did he create the Third Reich and their ideals, but also he created the “Nazi look.” All of the symbols had a purpose and that’s why Hitler hand selected the swastika as the symbol of the German empire. “It’s a stable sign, self-contained and balanced, but with a sense of motion or rotation.” Hitler knew what these signs could do and he took advantage of them. Every decision had a purpose and had a purpose of ideology. Obviously he wouldn’t have chosen a symbol that looked like it could stand for Semitism. The swastika wasn’t the only thing that had a deeper meaning behind it. Even the political rallies were designed to stimulate the senses. They included things like music and dancing and sports events. All of these extravagant displays were meant to create a mass emotion and move away from individualism. At the center of it all was of course Hitler himself. “ His speeches were not just written for posterity, but rehearsed and performed for their visual impact.” Without the visual element, Hitler loses the effect of really connecting with his audience and therefore the bond between person and brand is weakened.
When you begin to think about how marketing agencies can make a population think a certain way about a particular brand, you might agree that they do an effective job in doing so. This, however, is taken to a whole other level by Hitler, where through simple imagery of a classical, prosperous, Germany made an entire nation believe in a cause for action, and then subsequently war. The effectiveness of this imagery, I believe, had the impact that it did mainly because of the time period that the Germans were living in. After World War I, Germany (and a few of the Balkin states) was blamed entirely for the cause of WWI and thus was charged with war reparations for all of those effected by it. Germany's economy quickly went right into debt as they would begin printing off money just to keep up with these reparations. As a result many germans were without work and going bankrupt themselves. Now when an entire nation is feeling the economic pressures of a severe debt, and this powerful political figure such as hitler comes along with a solution, they couldn't help but listen to what h had to say. Hitler utilized classical imagery from the roman empire such as the eagles and the wreaths as a means of conveying the image of a successful and prosperous Germany, and the country bought right into it. It bought into it so much that Hitler was able to show them a sign once used to signify peace and prosperity, and turn it into a symbol that would go down in history as one that will always represent the fear and anger that Hitler unleashed onto the world.
Images have a huge effect on our everyday lives. The sort of control everything we do or buy. Most people buy will tend to purchase things based on their look or how they are sold to them. It is all about how attractive the product is to the buyer. Product that have a better image not necessarily better quality will be bought by the public. A master of the art of imagery was Adolf Hitler. He used the swastika as his main symbol. This symbol represent a progression for the German Nazis. It unified them under Hitler. Adolf Hitler was able to sell to the Germans the idea that Hitler was great and was perfect. The swastika represented Hitler so the German Nazi started to want to be represented by the swastika. It is amazing to know how much evil was represented by the swastika. The symbol is not evil, but what it represents is terrifying to people. Images have a lot more control over our decisions than people believe. Everything we do is controlled by imagery.
After reading this article by Alan Robbins I really was shocked at how clear his message was. Not only the Nazi Germany aspect of the article, but just how images truly are what shapes our everyday lives and makes us us. On the first page when Robbins says, “…we become our images. We change our appearance, make decisions, develop our truths and our lies, based on the images we see,” I honestly never thought about images in that sense before and the beginning of his article really opened my eyes. The fact that if we didn’t have images our world could basically be completely different is astonishing, and it also amazes me that society is based around images. We base our appearances off of what the images that magazines use look like and how the people are portrayed in them, and that’s also where we get our concept of ‘perfect’ from. Not only today is our world like this, but even decades ago like Nazi Germany, images were used to change the way that people think and function. Without the images and the power it creates would Hitler have had the support of so many people? I didn’t realize until now how everything was created and set up to project Hitler’s power and catch your attention to the idea of what he wanted, or how the stages were so intricate. If it weren’t for all of the images and art behind the rallies, Hitler’s influence may not have been as much of an impact as it actually was. I agree with the thought that too much of one thing is bad, and that is exactly what can happen with art in our world and its proven true through Hitler’s reign and propaganda.
After reading “Dire Image: The Art of Persuasion” by Alan Robbins I had sort of mixed feelings. I do agree that images are used in everyday life to persuade or control people in some form of another. I also agree that they are very effective at doing so. However the whole story about the Nazis seemed a little narrow. The Nazis did so many different things and I felt as if Robbins was portraying that the art reform was the most powerful. I am not an expert on the Nazi regime and everything that went down but I thought there was a lot more to it than a tilted swastika with the colors red, white and black.
ReplyDeleteWhen I hear that the Nazis indoctrinated an entire empire of people there posters and symbols were probably not the main factor. From the movies I’ve seen, there’s always a school scene showing how teachers are actually instructing the youth how the Nazis wanted and essentially converting them. Now this whole thing was less than 10 years so half of the Hitler youth did not go to war because they were too young, but brainwashing youth has an extreme effect. I’m sure the adults were brainwashed in other ways too. Men of age were drafted to go fight and their families wanted to support them, and by extension were supporting the whole regime. The Nazi art and the disposal of “Semitic” art was not the only tactic used and would probably have been far less effective without the use of the other methods.
The image combines with the other methods of brain washing to create some sort of combo effect. If they didn’t draft people, there would have been far less family members having to show support. But because they did, these family members needed a way to show their support and this is where the image came in. They would display flags, go to meeting and convene; all while further spreading and increasing the effectiveness of the Nazis grasp on the people. So images are important, but there needs to be an underlying desire for the images to spark. If I draw a really cool symbol and try a start some kind of cult, I would get any followers, I need to offer an ideology that people can believe in.
When we studied Hitler back in grade school one thing that always caught my eye in the photos and videos was how big and elaborate the stages were for Hitlers speeches, and also how well the posters caught your eye. Though I wasn't around during that time and didn't know the history of how the colors and the look were chosen (or why) I feel like it still had that drawing affect on me that it did for so many other people. I do agree with the article how it talks about Hitler drawing in so many people simply by using well planned out imagery. I definitely found it interesting how the colors, placement of the swastica and even the swastica itself were picked to represent Hitler and his movement. It was extremely clever for him to select a symbol that had previously been used to signify unity, and used by such places as boys and girls clubs. If Hitler could accomplish that much through his visual stimuli as a bad guy, it makes me wonder what could have become if he used his powers for good. Maybe he could have used his great artistic ability to employ large numbers of people to do good things.
ReplyDeleteReading “The Dire Image,” I was almost dumbfounded at how clear Robbin’s message hit me. Regardless of what any symbol means, we automatically attribute its meaning to its place in popular culture and the media. For example, I did not know that before the use of the swastika by Adolf Hitler, the swastika actually was a good symbol. Originating from the Indus Valley civilization, the symbol literally means “it is good,” that is, that is what it used to mean. What gets me is that anyone who sees a swastika automatically thinks of Hitler, WWII, and the Holocaust. It is weird to think that a symbol that was designed for the purpose to say something good, has become an infamous symbol, one that represents genocide, and a time of turmoil. The idea that is crazy to think is the fact that the swastika is not an inherently evil symbol, by any means, it is the opposite, as I mentioned before. The fact that we as a society automatically associate this symbol with Death and evil really seems to support the idea that Robbin presents. The fact that a group of individuals could view a painting in a museum, and all have diverse views and interpretations, while the swastika would have the opposite effect; One where everyone sees horror, and inhumanity. While Hitler was certainly responsible for one of the largest crimes against humanity; He was also was responsible for the shaming of a once peaceful symbol, which is now synonymous with crude markings etched into the desks that no one wants to sit at.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that images have a strong influence on us all. It’s kind of like when you read a book then watch the movie; if you ever read the book again, the images of those characters and scenes will be in your head. It’s odd because I always knew Hitler to be somewhat of a genius but never an artist. I also never realized how much thought had gone into the Nazi symbol that we now all can recognize in a second. The shape, color, angle, and position were carefully planned to portray a certain thought much like many advertisements do today. These logos can make us believe a certain idea to be true, just by looking at a picture, without even realizing it. This goes back to images having a certain power over us that sometimes we don’t even know it. As stated in the passage, Hitler’s art was powerful it influenced the public to be enthused by it and follow his lead. Images can be so manipulative people have to be careful about what they are supporting. Robbins warns us of this at the end of the passage that we should be aware of what the images in our time are making of us. However I somewhat disagree with what he is trying to say for our own time. At one point in the passage he explains just how powerful image was back then but I don’t believe it is the same now. I don’t think one image can change everything in our lives because there are so many images around us all the time. It seems everything now has an image or logo associated with it because reading takes to long. We now process images so quickly that one symbol could start an entire movement. However I also agree if we are talking about the image of society and its expectations. Pictures are now much easier to access and they are everywhere so we are constantly shown what we are expected to look like and act like. Although I suppose images are so subtly influencing us more than I think. It’s hard to tell if I am being manipulated; whether there are images everywhere around me secretly telling me what to think or not. I really don’t know the answer.
ReplyDeleteAdolf Hitler was obviously a mastermind when it came to manipulation and persuasion, but he also had a knack for symbols. Robbins says “ the dark visionary behind almost every image produced in Germany during that time.” This really strikes me because as odd because everybody thinks of Hitler as a genius of warfare and politics, when really he single handedly created German culture as well. Not only did he create the Third Reich and their ideals, but also he created the “Nazi look.” All of the symbols had a purpose and that’s why Hitler hand selected the swastika as the symbol of the German empire. “It’s a stable sign, self-contained and balanced, but with a sense of motion or rotation.” Hitler knew what these signs could do and he took advantage of them. Every decision had a purpose and had a purpose of ideology. Obviously he wouldn’t have chosen a symbol that looked like it could stand for Semitism.
ReplyDeleteThe swastika wasn’t the only thing that had a deeper meaning behind it. Even the political rallies were designed to stimulate the senses. They included things like music and dancing and sports events. All of these extravagant displays were meant to create a mass emotion and move away from individualism. At the center of it all was of course Hitler himself. “ His speeches were not just written for posterity, but rehearsed and performed for their visual impact.” Without the visual element, Hitler loses the effect of really connecting with his audience and therefore the bond between person and brand is weakened.
When you begin to think about how marketing agencies can make a population think a certain way about a particular brand, you might agree that they do an effective job in doing so. This, however, is taken to a whole other level by Hitler, where through simple imagery of a classical, prosperous, Germany made an entire nation believe in a cause for action, and then subsequently war. The effectiveness of this imagery, I believe, had the impact that it did mainly because of the time period that the Germans were living in. After World War I, Germany (and a few of the Balkin states) was blamed entirely for the cause of WWI and thus was charged with war reparations for all of those effected by it. Germany's economy quickly went right into debt as they would begin printing off money just to keep up with these reparations. As a result many germans were without work and going bankrupt themselves. Now when an entire nation is feeling the economic pressures of a severe debt, and this powerful political figure such as hitler comes along with a solution, they couldn't help but listen to what h had to say. Hitler utilized classical imagery from the roman empire such as the eagles and the wreaths as a means of conveying the image of a successful and prosperous Germany, and the country bought right into it. It bought into it so much that Hitler was able to show them a sign once used to signify peace and prosperity, and turn it into a symbol that would go down in history as one that will always represent the fear and anger that Hitler unleashed onto the world.
ReplyDeleteImages have a huge effect on our everyday lives. The sort of control everything we do or buy. Most people buy will tend to purchase things based on their look or how they are sold to them. It is all about how attractive the product is to the buyer. Product that have a better image not necessarily better quality will be bought by the public.
ReplyDeleteA master of the art of imagery was Adolf Hitler. He used the swastika as his main symbol. This symbol represent a progression for the German Nazis. It unified them under Hitler. Adolf Hitler was able to sell to the Germans the idea that Hitler was great and was perfect. The swastika represented Hitler so the German Nazi started to want to be represented by the swastika. It is amazing to know how much evil was represented by the swastika. The symbol is not evil, but what it represents is terrifying to people.
Images have a lot more control over our decisions than people believe. Everything we do is controlled by imagery.
After reading this article by Alan Robbins I really was shocked at how clear his message was. Not only the Nazi Germany aspect of the article, but just how images truly are what shapes our everyday lives and makes us us. On the first page when Robbins says, “…we become our images. We change our appearance, make decisions, develop our truths and our lies, based on the images we see,” I honestly never thought about images in that sense before and the beginning of his article really opened my eyes. The fact that if we didn’t have images our world could basically be completely different is astonishing, and it also amazes me that society is based around images. We base our appearances off of what the images that magazines use look like and how the people are portrayed in them, and that’s also where we get our concept of ‘perfect’ from. Not only today is our world like this, but even decades ago like Nazi Germany, images were used to change the way that people think and function. Without the images and the power it creates would Hitler have had the support of so many people? I didn’t realize until now how everything was created and set up to project Hitler’s power and catch your attention to the idea of what he wanted, or how the stages were so intricate. If it weren’t for all of the images and art behind the rallies, Hitler’s influence may not have been as much of an impact as it actually was. I agree with the thought that too much of one thing is bad, and that is exactly what can happen with art in our world and its proven true through Hitler’s reign and propaganda.
ReplyDelete