Protests: To Be Violent, Or Not To Be, That Is The Question...

Often times, we encounter or hear about protests.  Some are violent, some are not.  The question is, are non-violent protests as effective as those that are not?  Does it cause more discussion to inflict violence or does it simply cause people to feel cynicism and ignore the fight for a cause?  One protest  that most recently comes to mind is that of Occupy Denver.  It was incredible to see the mass amounts of citizens gathered around City Park, protesting for the things they believe in.  Besides the violence from police onto citizens, there was little violence.  Would this Occupy Denver protest have been more effective if citizen's were more violent and perhaps threw tomatoes at city buildings?  The definition of protest is: "A statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something."  So, if you want to make a bold statement and thus cause change, must you engage in violent behavior?  Or is there other ways of going about it....

Aesthetic Negotiation at Home and Abroad

While reading Dr. Sci's article about aesthetic negotiation and the way it is used to engage visitors, I started wondering whether memorials overseas have the same aesthetic qualities.

An example that came to mind was the WWII memorial in Normandy, France overlooking Omaha Beach. While this memorial is in France, it was designed by an American architecture firm in Philadelphia. It is interesting to think that this firm was building a memorial for an American audience, but doing so in a foreign country.

Earlier in the semester we discussed how the idea of aesthetic negotiation became more prevalent with the Vietnam memorial, yet the WWII memorial on Omaha Beach also draws visitors in with aesthetic negotiation. The memorial was finished in 1956, yet there is still such a majestic quality about it.

I'm sure the architects meant to make it that way, but I also think that the location of the memorial and the history behind it makes it so special.

NGO's and Humanitarianism

As most NGO's try to raise money to help a certain group of people, we notice that similar images are projected into the media. This is for several reasons, and we can see that these particular images evoke intense emotions to lure in the "donator." This particular image concentrates on a young boy, who is from Africa, and a description says that he is hungry, poor, and has no family to care for him and he also is suffering from AIDs and receives no medical care. As American's we are more likely to donate money when we actually feel bad for the person if their situation, and these large corporations will use this to their advantage. Whether this is seen as good or bad I do not know, but we must be aware of the fact that these images are designed to make us feel a certain way, and to take action. The action steps are always kindly laid out for us, whether it be donating money or time we are directed on exactly what to do.

Youtube vs. Blogs

Upon reading this article about the Youtube responses to the short film Fitna, I found it very interesting to see this called a new way of performing citizenship. This article also made me wonder whether the same ideas could be applied to a more classic type of blog where the author writes about his or her religious or political identity, despite a physical location.

van Zoonen, Vis, and Miheji write, "We conclude that the particular articulations of religious and political identities, with different modes of audience address assume a connectedness between dispersed people in which new forms of (unlocated) citizenship emerge." While the authors are talking about a Youtube community where people post videos about their personal stance on the Fitna film, I think this quote could also be applied to blogs. Not only blogs, but also the many other ways in which you can express yourself on the internet.

Non-Violent Protests

In class today, we discussed the fact that most protests have to be violent to get media attention. When looking at past non-violent protests, I realized that the only ones that got attention were protests that were done over 50 years ago. Today, our protests consist of bombings, mass murder, self-mutilation, and damage to property. These drastic protests always lead to immense media coverage, which then encourages others to protest in violent ways to get the attention that they want. When looking at the website that I attached, my favorite non-violent protest which was done by Rosa Parks got so much attention from the public because of the social norms that she was breaking. But its hard to imagine our culture today giving any attention to the non-violent protests that are occurring today. The mass coverage of violent protests and attacks seems to be making our culture numb to the fact that this violence is actually harming people.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887394_1861258,00.html

Seattle and Boston

I found it very interesting how this article, From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the "Violence" of Seattle by Kevin Michael DeLuca and Jennifer Peeples, discusses the public screen and our attraction to violence. There was a specific quote about communication technology that caught my attention. 

DeLuca and Peeples write, "They physically shrink the world while simultaneously mentally expanding it, producing a vast expansion of geographical consciousness. Thoreau's caustic comments about the telegraph have come true. We know and care when Princess Di has a car crash. Texas may not have much to say to Maine, but it is transmitted nevertheless," 

This quote makes me think about Boston and the countless other tragedies that have garnered national attention in the past 12 months. When tragedies like Boston or Newtown happen, there is an outpouring of attention and support from mediums like television, Facebook, Twitter. These outlets have a way of bringing us together. They focus our attention because we are drawn to violence, tragedy, and other spectacles that deviate from the norm. 

Social Media - Creating a Persona Online

I find it interesting that the Internet has become a place for people to make "friends" and create a persona of themselves that may not be entirely true.  You can be a completely different person online than in face-to-face situations.  People have the control to create a character that they find to be appealing to others.  Social media websites give voice and a sense of confidence for those who may not particularly be this way in person.  The manipulation and use of photo posting online allows people to create their ideal identity and gain approval from others.  Oh Facebook, how you have changed the idea of interpersonal relationships and the manner in which people connect with one another, I will never fully comprehend.

Instagram and Personal Relationships

When Instagram first became popular, a lot of people were wondering "What's the point of it." Many people described it as a sort of twitter for pictures; a way for you to keep other visually updated on your daily life.

The idea that we can take control of our social media identities through networks like Instagram is very interesting to me. While we may have control over the pictures, how they look, their filters, their captions, we don't have control over how other people will react to them or even how they will engage with them. The more we put out there for others to see, the less control we have -- but not everyone sees it that way. For some people the more pictures they publish online equals more followers and more recognition for the beauty of their pictures or possibly themselves.

I think this type of interaction is cheapening the personal ties we have with one another. Instead of getting to know people by talking to them, we are getting to know them by creeping through their Instagram album.

Instagram Beauty Pageants

The use of self portraits, or "selfies" has overtaken social media and especially the new instagram sensation. Young girls are now posting pictures of themselves in little to no clothing for a new "beauty pageant" where people can like their pictures and rate them on who looks the best or the "hottest." Photos are being used to indicate beauty and "social worth" within the context of social media and cyber space. As our reading indicated, these comments and "likes" act as compliments and show the persons worth. Instead of positive comments, the instagram pageant is attracting rude, mean, and harassing comments that are hurting feelings of the girls posting the pictures. Instagram attacked back by saying is it the parents responsibility to monitor their child's instagram. Although the use of media and photography is changing rapidly, our older generations of society are not as accepting of these changes. The media is used for fast communication and the "producing and reproducing" of our social life. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/04/instagram-beauty-pageants-draw-parents-scrutiny/

The Rise of Digital Photography

Technology is constantly evolving and improving.  The rise of digital photography has changed the way in which we value photos.  Our grandparents understand photos as a source of memory and reminiscing, whereas people of my generation use it as a documentation of their daily lives.  People use picture messaging via cell phones to essentially send virtual post cards and the influx of social media outlets like Facebook give individuals the ability to document their daily activities.  It makes one wonder, what's next?

Identity and The Selfie

In the article Digital photography:communication, identity, and memory, Jose Van Dijick talks about digital photography and the way it allows us to create an identity rather than look back on one. The article focuses on the difference between analogue and digital photography. Van Dijick argues that analogue photography was about looking back and remembering who we were, where as digital is about creating who we are.

This concept made me think of selfies. Selfies are pictures we take of ourselves by ourselves. The selfie also relates to Van Dijick's idea that digital photography gives us more control. "When a picture is taken, we want those photographs to match our idealized self-image -- flattering, without pimples, happy, attractive -- so we attempt to influence the process by posing, smiling, or giving instructions to the photographer," wrote Van Dijick (64). We are constantly trying to control the way others see us, and we often do this through digital photography. With selfies, there are many people who take dozens and dozens of pictures of themselves just to make sure they are sending the right image to their peers. It is a way for them to document their appearance at a specific time in their lives as well as get attention from others.

This is an interesting way of seeing because it not only involves how others see us, but how we see ourselves.

Witnessing War

Witnessing War was a fascinating article because it touched on the differences between Western and non-Western media in covering war. War and propaganda are very interesting to me because we have been using media to our advantage since the first photographs of war emerged.

Western cultures are much more likely to censor their images in order to maintain a respectable and dignified public image -- but this image was not always representative of the truth.

Images of war are often used to manipulate the public and garner their support for various endeavors. I personally think this is undemocratic because it is a way of withholding the truth from citizens of a country. Withholding inhibits our ability to see. But I am still forced to wonder whether there is a line that the government must walk when showing or censoring images to the public. How far is too far?

History Repeats

When we read The Veil and The Visible, I found the attack on the hijab in public school very interesting. These veils represent many things to many different people, but it all depends on where you live. This New York Times article  discusses how a small region in Russia is also banning the hijab in public schools, much like the French did.

These restrictions indicate a greater fear that people have of not only Muslims, but of Eastern culture and the distinct differences it has from Western culture. The veil can represent danger, suspicion, and the unknown. Isn't that something we are always fearful of? The unknown?

It seems that whenever regulations are tightened or things are banned, it is due to fear. This can be good and bad, but what would be better is to somehow gain a better understanding of the things we are fearful of. The Muslim religion makes Westerners uneasy because they don't fully understand it, and the same goes for the hijab.

Digital Manipulation and Identity Formation

Digital photography not only allows for manipulation of images to view are more desirable image of ourselves, but it also creates a false identity for us to mentally embrace. In this photograph, the woman is seen as being fit and glowing, and creates an identity of a model, but in "reality" the women is overweight and has a normal skin tone. This poses a problem to society, because if more and more people are using digital means to create an identity, are we all creating false identities to which we live by? Could this lead to narcissistic tendencies or behaviors or are we setting ourselves up for failure because we can never "live up" to our idealistic identities?

The Veil

The Veil is controversial in the United states because we view them as a threat, and we have negative connotations that go along with the use of a veil. Our conversation in class got me thinking about how the veil can also be seen as desirable. We use the traditional veils during wedding ceremonies to represent modesty and purity, but most American's are using the veil due to tradition and not actually the meaning of the tradition. The veils in the Muslim community are also used to represent purity, tradition, and virginity; but instead we (American's) view the veils as a treat, creating a contrasting argument. If the meaning of a veil is similar universally, what makes the veil of a Muslim so threatening to Americans, and why do we view the use of the veil as constricting?

Witnessing the War

"The Iraq War marked the beginning of the end of network news coverage.  Viewers saw the juxtaposition of the embedded correspondents reporting the way as it was actually unfolding and the jaundiced, biased, negative coverage of the same events in the network newsrooms."  -Dick Morris How are we as citizens of America really suppose to know what is going on out there, especially during the war on Iraq, when all we see is carefully crafted information displayed by news outlets??

Iraq War- Witness

The Iraq war perpetuates an idea that the soldiers are serving their lives for the beauty of the Country and even the World. The media that we are shown today shows the public the scarifies that the soldiers are making, and the beauty in death for the country. The media shows the American Soldier as a heroic figure, and it is a one sided story, where the stories of the Iraqi civilians are dismissed and ignored. The picture that I found shows an American hero and Iraqi children following the America hero, as if he is protecting them from harm and suffering and they even look happy, even though he is carrying a gun. We are only witnessing the war from the American media, and we are not seeing the tragedies from the other side of the story.

Surveillance

"The Discipline of Watching" is an article written about the concept of surveillance.  A technical definition of surveillance can be understood as "close observation."  This article deals with the in-depth concept of all facets of surveillance.  Surveillance can be understood through television shows like MTV's Room Raiders, social media outlets like Facebook and day to day surveillance through observing those around us.  It makes one wonder, if we were to take away all these technological advances, would it allow us to live a more private life?

Power of Law Enforcement

After reading the article "The Discipline of Watching" by Andrejevic, I have thought about the power that surveillance gives to authority figures in our society. For example, our law enforcement has an abundance amount of power over us citizens, and we are highly subjected to surveillance at any point in our daily lives. As much as we would like to think that our law enforcement is protecting our society there has been much controversy about how much power we allow them to have over us. Our law enforcement watches over us at all times when we are in public, and they have the right to enter our homes at anytime. Unfortunately, our society has been known for having mass amounts of corruption at times, and we have our power stripped away from us. We are told they are protecting us, but how can we tell? If the police have no warrants, rights or suspicion, it is hard to believe that they can have the right to come into our personal lives. Many people have been upset with the law enforcement and the government power that they have received over them. It is hard for me to have a position on this controversy because on one hand I want to believe and hope that the law enforcement is there to protect us, but I can also see that they have too much power to surveillance our society.

 http://articles.petoskeynews.com/2003-09-18/subpoena-power_24040274

How Facebook Makes Creepy Behavior Normal

After reading Andrejevic's The Discipline of Watching, I started to think more about the different ways we are all surveilled. I found a really interesting article that talks about Facebook and how it is changing the rules of social surveillance. The main premise of the article is that, through Facebook, we both surveil and are surveilled. Facebook allows us to identify with both roles, making it more common for us to follow or research people online. The article also mentions the panoptic prison scenario that we talked about in class. An important question that the article asks is, when are we okay with creeping and being crept on?

We all definitely have boundaries when it comes to surveilling and being surveilled, but where are they?

How Facebook Makes Creepy Behavior Normal

Abu Ghraib vs. WWII

I thought today's reading, Invisible Empire: Visual Culture, Embodied Spectacle, and ABu Ghraib by Nicholas Mirzoeff, was really intriguing. The censorship that occurred with these photographs reminded of what the government did during WWII. During the second World War the government kept a lot of information and pictures from the public in order to control the narrative of the war. Here is one of the pictures that was released after the war. Images like this strayed from the idea that America was dominant and noble. These images are almost degrading, which is why they were censored. I find the parallels between this and the Abu Ghraib photos very interesting.

Why are we as an American society so mesmorized by individuals, like the Kardashian family, that are famous simply by being wealthy?