Lecture 5 - Cities and Film

There are a lot of films that use the city to describe its setting and what the story's going to be about. A good example of this is 'A Bug's Life'; This film demonstrates the core differences between a city and the countryside and re-interprets them to suit the lifestyle of bugs.

In these two example pictures, you can see the colours are very different, the city giving darker tones with spotlights to represent a busy street with lots of buildings at night, and how it is usually a lively place. Whereas the countryside has very bright greens and pinks to highlight a peaceful place (or at least at the end of the film) which has more common communities that work together to make their homeland better.

The City

The Countryside

Lecture 4 - Identity

The subject of identity is a controversial issue, particularly in the past. These are some of the main points that were demonstrated in the lecture:

• Essentialism is the theory that everything has a set of characteristics that makes it what it is. The same goes for people - it is believed that you are born a certain way, but each has different characteristics so you can tell the difference between, for example, a man and a woman.

• Everybody has an identity; supposedly we can be whoever we want to be and we shouldn't be judged for it, but that's not necessarily the case within society. 

• In the past there was an extremely contorted version of the ideal identity - that if you didn't look or act a certain way then you weren't deemed intelligent or beautiful. This borders on racism and sexism suggesting that white men are smarter and generally better then black men or women in general. This is reflected in artists work as well, such as Chris Ofili's work exploring how The Bible's Mary could have looked if she were black, generally receiving negative feedback on it.

Holy Virgin Mary

• Another way to judge your identity was in the clothes people used to wear; depending on their jobs and how rich they were they would wear the appropriate clothing for those tasks. You can also talk about this with the use of items instead, such as a Macbook can represent someone who is rich. 

• Since the use of social media has become so popular, more and more people are able to form an identity they like and that others might like, that doesn't necessarily describe themselves since they have the freedom to be optional with what they post and what other people can see. This is ironic in the sense that despite having the freedom to express yourself in a profile, a lot of people still choose to be an ideal, different version of themselves.

Visual Analysis

At the start of this seminar, we were shown two animations and discussed them afterwards:

The first is called 'Bottle' by Kirsten Lepore; it describes the story of two beings from different locations sending messages to each other in a bottle, and using the pieces the other sends, they decorate their bodies with various items.



As enjoyable and inoffensive as it is to view as an animation, it can also have deeper meanings. For example it can represent a persons identity, about how you can dress and look however you want. This ties in well with how social media allows us to create our own identity, whether genuine or fake, so you only let people see what you want them to see.
It could also represent how different cultures can come together and intertwine, embracing each others differences. Being exposed to different cultures can shape our identity and improve our knowledge.
The story this is telling is that no matter where you're from or how far apart you are, you can still be friends with and care for anyone - but ultimately it will be near-impossible for them to be together for long.
The water could represent our society and how it doesn't accept certain differences, especially when they try to unite.
As for the animation itself, you can interpret it in many different ways, since the characters are neutral beings, with only subtle hints as to who or what they could be.

The second animation shown was 'The Dog who was a Cat Inside' by Siri Melchior:



This plot also has deeper levels of meaning; to children it is just an entertaining animation about a cat inside a dog, but to others it could be about the confused identity of the dog - the cat seems invisible to everyone else so this suggests the cat is inside the dogs mind/imagination.
It could relate to some serious issues such as transgender and having a split personality, so is animation really the best way to represent the issues? If so then it has to be handled in the right way, otherwise it could be perceived as too light-hearted or even offensive.
This particular animation has quite a messy style, with lines that look like marker pens and shapes that are cut out - all these elements make this piece quirky, which I think many people will enjoy.

They both have similar meanings behind the stories - using very different styles and techniques to portray this. They both touch on the subject of identity and how the best way to be happy in life is if you stay true to who you are. There's also the topic of love which emanates through every main character in both animations - whether it's a loving partner or friendship, all characters have a goal in mind (to meet the other person or to find love) that drives the story.

Both animations can be interpreted to have deeper meanings - of representing how society works and doesn't accept much difference from the 'mainstream', however both pieces show that you can find others in the world that will accept you for who you are, no matter where they are.

The endings with both films have one thing in common - that every main character finds a companion who accepts them for who they are.

Lecture 2 - The Gaze and the Media

The first quote given to us in this lecture stated:

"According to usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have by no means been overcome - men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at"

This was said by Berger in 1972; it is something that could be taken different ways. To some, it could suggest that women are vain by 'watching themselves being looked at', but a deeper meaning suggests that women are self conscious about themselves because they are being looked at by all. They naturally get more attention because over the years, the media has used naked/provocative women to advertise, giving men more to look at and making women feel that they need to look differently to be accepted into society.

Even as early as 1485, Hans Memling made a portrait of a nude woman looking at herself in a mirror; the stance and positioning of her suggests that she is giving permission for the viewer to look at her, since looking at herself in the mirror suggests vanity.

'Vanity' by Hans Memling, 1485

Another point that was addressed in this lecture was the positioning of a model, and how there's a fine line between what's acceptable to be advertised.
For example, this photo on the left was the original shot for an advert; however the client felt it was too provocative to publish since her hand is on her breast and her facial expression gives off a bad impression, so the photographer turned the photo so it was portrait, which moved the focus of the image to the face, which was apparently fine to show. This proves there is a fine line between what is or isn't acceptable in the media.

Her gaze is away from the camera; which implies that she doesn't notice we're looking at her during this private moment. It almost feels as if we have the freedom to look at her exposed body without any concern or challenge from the woman.






The next two images, painted 3000 years after each other, are very similar in structure but give off slightly different impressions.

Titan's 'Venus of Urbino', 1538

Manet's 'Olympia', 1863

 The woman on the left has a flirtatious look (based on the positioning of her hands and her head tilt), almost inviting the viewer to look at her. Whereas the woman on the right has a stern look; her hand placed on her leg and staring at the viewer, making them feel slightly more uncomfortable looking at her.

Manet had already started challenging the gaze of onlookers through this painting, which was partly what kick-started the feminist campaign.

This was an idea for a campaign originally designed to be displayed on buses and billboards, which got taken down because the woman's body is too sexually appealing. Which is ironic because it's stating that most of the women displayed in the museum are naked - so what makes it ok to display nude women but not state the facts?

Despite not being able to state facts about how much female nudity we are exposed to, we are still allowed to advertise women's underwear in this fashion.

The first example (left) implies that it is normal to be posing in underwear in the middle of a busy street. In a way this is a good way to advertise their underwear, making it the norm to wear it anywhere - but the objectification of women also stands out in this image.

The second picture (bottom) was displayed on billboards; The caption 'Hello Boys' is inviting men to look at her, and encouraging the fact that they are allowed to objectify women and look as they please; and making it seem normal as they do this. The fact that she's looking down at herself and her facial expression also invites others to look at her, since she's not challenging their gaze.

Seeing adverts like this has also shown women that only a certain look is considered 'beautiful' in the media - which stirs up a lot of self-hate among those who look different from the models advertised.
This is evident now more than ever due to social media websites promoting the idea of self-hate.




However, men are starting to be exposed more over the past few years, with this as an example from 2007:

The difference between this and the other images shown here is every man in this photo is looking at the camera; giving us a challenging look that is almost threatening towards the viewer.
So despite being almost naked, the men are still looking dominant and fully aware, whereas most of the women are shown as unchallenging and welcoming to everyone's gaze.

The issue here is that women are implied to be weaker than men; that there seems to be double standards within the media which invites people to objectify women because it's more common for them to be seen with little clothes on - so why don't women deserve the same dignity as men?

If we don't look back and realise what is wrong with the media over art history, then this problem will never be resolved in the future.

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS