On Photoshop Fun

My roommate designs book covers for his father as a part time job and it has really made him a pro in Photoshop. He has made some pretty awesome facebook profiles with this talent such as him shaking hands with President Nixon or hugging a giant wombat. And with what little I've done today on Photoshop, I've become very interested in Photoshop as an art form. I'm neither a good graphic designer nor a good photographer, but I suspect that if one were to acquire both set of skills he/she could do phenomenal things. I'm sure there are many artists out there who already do this but there is no one that I know of that is a famous "Photoshop" artist. I feel that those who are good at it not only have a small audience to view their work but they are also poorly paid. From my limited experience, it sounds like graphic design as an art is a fairly small field as those concerned with graphic design are more interested in completing projects that they are being paid to do rather than making artistic statements with their creative work.

On Hollywood Arabs

After watching the video on how Arabs have been terribly misrepresented in Hollywood I'm starting to notice many trends for other races of people as well. Working off stereotypes, just as the "terrorist" is always an Arab, Asians are quite often depicted as several distinct characters. Young Asian men are typically martial artists or a computer whiz. Young Asian women are typically martial artists and/or sexual objects or seductresses. Older Asians are portrayed as people of wisdom or as owners of small restaurants/shops with a loud mouth. These racial stereotypes certainly aren't as terrible as those associated with blacks and Arabs, but they are nonetheless giving the public wrong generalizations. I definitely agree with bell hooks that racism as a visual rhetoric must be made aware and stopped.

On Module 4 Brainstorming

I am working on coming up with an argument for my Module 4. So far I have the subject, video game violence as art. One direction I can take this is to research on why it is so satisfying to violent kill or destroy things, especially for men, in the form of a video game. Do we, somewhat pervertedly, like graphic violence and gore for the sake of violence and gore? Or do we like violence and gore that is done well graphically? Another direction is in the type of violence we are presented. Do video gamers like realistic violence (blood splatter, dismemberment)? Probably yes. But how realistic do we want it? Do we really want the "bad guys" screaming, "please don't kill me!" and hold a very realistic expression of fear and pain just as we put a bullet in their head? Do we kill because we like the kill? Or is it just a fun challenge, and when we realize we've come too close to killing does it becomes a moral hazard? What about the recent developement of stylized violence (comical death, exaggerated humans/creatures, unrealistic death)? Is this a way of putting distance between the act of murder and gaming? Lastly, a third direction I can take is on the subject of violence in video games itself. Has our triggerhappy, violent society made us so eager to love death and destruction as our form of entertainment? Or is the violent visual rhetoric of video games something our dark human nature looks for?

On Branding Readings

After reading the articles on branding, a few interesting thoughts came to mind. One, I think it's interesting that branding, a monster born from and raised by anything capitalistic, exists in this capitalistic society that emphasizes individuality and independence. On the one hand, free market works off the assumption that every party will act in their own best interest and keep things functioning in good competition with each other. On the other hand, branding represents the merging of our identities. Certainly not in conflict with each other, I just find it intriguing that two opposing ideologies coexist so nicely. Another thought came as a response to "Bitch Skateboards" in Japan as a popular brand despite how sexist and offensive its name and logo are. I think it is terrifying that we are willing to follow pop culture so blindly and passionately. Why is it that the name makes so much of a difference? We are essentially putting faith in a couple of trademarked words.

On black in Disney

I found the presentation on the use of black/darkness in villainy in Disney animation very fascinating. To see all the evil characters in my favorite childhood stories displaying such similar characteristics and traits makes me wonder about the colors used in present day animated baddies. Upon thinking about this, there really isn't anymore villains shrouded in menacing black and purple... in fact, there really aren't any hardcore villains I can think of off the top of my head. But perhaps the black in villains has been omitted due to a reverse visual rhetoric. Recognizing that their past evil characters share the black wardrobe thing in common, perhaps Disney/Pixar have gone the other direction in order to either conceal the villain (Toy Story 2 comes to mind) or simply break away from the masterplots that they have most definitely overused (Treasure Planet anyone?)

Also, it'll be interesting to see what "villain" character may be present in Disney's The Princess and the Frog, set to be released this winter. This film will not only feature a return to their classic musical 2-D animation style but also the first African-American princess. Set in New Orleans, I'm assuming that there'll be a majority of black characters, thus diverging from Disney's typical pale white demographic. And I can only wonder if this villain (if there is a villain...) will be classically treated to the color black or not.

On Commodity Fetishism

Though we didn't get to discuss too much of chapter 6 in class, I was very intrigued by the commodity fetishism section. I realized just how true it is that the capitalistic mass production of items erases the curiosity of all background information on the item as we are simply concerned with the acquisition and ownership of the item instead. Certainly Nike sweatshops were the first thing that came to mind when I read the definition of the term but before its discussion in the book a paragraph later. But just sitting here typing on my laptop, I eyes are wandering all over my desk thinking about where everything came from and how they were made. The picture frame, the speakers, the pencils and pens, the desk itself, the chair I sit on, the clothes I wear this very minute... Probably like the majority of America, I am a victim of the commodity fetishism engraved into us by our visual culture. Never do I wonder where the materials originate, I am strictly concerned with their function and existence as mine.