Groom updates Facebook status during vows

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93216/married-at-this-very-moment/

Groom updates Facebook status during vows

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93216/married-at-this-very-moment/

Baudrillard

"Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly...from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here....The function of the One is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program."

- "The Architect", The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

    The Architect, who appears in the much maligned Matrix sequels, is ultimately the character who evokes the true philosophy Baudrillard was getting at regarding simulacra and simulations.

    The first Matrix movie offered the base premise that our mundane reality was merely the facade for a grim void which mirrors Baudrillard’s warning that there might be no reality at all. The movie ends with Neo telling us that we can break free. However in the next movie Neo is faced with The Architect who, true to Baudrillard’s vision, flat-out tells our hero that even his impressive, Buddha-like awakening against the world of simulation is in itself ALSO a simulation. This is where the Wachowski Brothers get their turn to warn us that our innate revulsion and pushback against phoniness might not be our genuine feelings, but rather another social impulse to “play it by the numbers”.

    It is as if The Architect is looking us, the audience, in the eye and asking: “You honestly believed that hokey that the first movie was trying to peddle to you?”

    Nevertheless, amidst his Moebius strip-like explanation of our non-reality, Baudrillard does not advocate that we simply give up, take the Blue Pill, and become a proverbial battery. That is to say, we should actively participate in the game, fight the good fight, whether we think we’ll arrive at The One Big Truth or not (he’s betting we won’t, by the way). We continue to fight the establishment but, rather than topple it outright, we’re charged with rendering it illegitimate by providing our own narratives, and not the ones the establishment hands us.

    Just as Baudrillard (and perhaps Henry Jenkins) hopes, the end result is that we’ll live in an infinitely nebulous reality where nothing need be taken at face value unless we choose to. In many ways, though, this freedom of ideas can be insidious. Take for instance the actual increase in recent years of Americans who don’t believe in evolution. One would hope that if those people are pushing back against the establishment of science that they aren’t merely retreating to the establishment of religion which is a far gloomier scenario for individual thought.

    Aside from tangible enemies of authority by the few, the other forces we have to fight off are our own mass ignorance and mass complacency. The Architect would have you believe you’re still stuck playing the game, but at least you can bend the rules.

baudrillard's a lonely lonely man

Baudrillard's blurb reminded me of most of our reading so far. With Debord's description of the self perpetuating cycle of spectacle to McLuhn's talk about the media, Baudrillard echoes the notion that the ways in which we form meaning, especially in light of new media and information technologies, are not only pervasive, but so far removed from the realm of gritty, verifiable fact and fiction. Now society can tout whatever it wants and someone somewhere will regard it as reality based.

This idea of a metaphysics and poetry existing between the space of something actual and its translation into a map, book, television show, etc, is interesting. The idea that this metaphysical, 'magical' quality is lost when something is based on something that was never tied to its original source of inspiration is also interesting. But I guess Baudrillard is very suspicious of this because he thinks it diluted reality. My issue with what he is saying is because I err on the postmodern side of truth anyway and feel that this more direct pure relation between the terrain the cartographers attempts to map it never really existed. It sounds like Baudrillard was getting nostalgic.

In my own undergraduate field of cultural anthropology, I witnessed a college program undergo a sort of crisis (well, not quite) when it decided to change the name of it's major to "critical theory and social justice." The department's new understanding of the whole field of anthropology was that it had been, for too long, grounded in false notions of true unadulterated objectivity in the ethnographer's field work. The consensus was that no anthropologist was capable of writing about another culture without writing jane eyre, or some very personalized, two-cent novel reflecting their own pathetic lives. I thought the acknowledgment between ethnographic writing and humanities writing made sense. It took the pressure of objectivity out of the picture and it made it more fun. Did it dilute the field of anthropology?...probably. So maybe Baudrillard was right.

Where Deceit Deceives Itself: The Society of the Spectacle- Response by Melanie Hung

Guy Debord, a man introduced as a lonesome and depressed being, is the true focus of the article, “The Society of the Spectacle.”
At the moment, I do not feel the urge to write about what the article summarizes. (I am sure everyone in class took notes and can look at this confusing article with at least tad bit of comprehension. I am more interested in the author himself and why he would write such a multi-layered piece of analysis.
From the first few paragraphs, one can state that Debord sees things in an interesting perspective. He finds that people are living in a world that is representational of not the people in it but the ideal lifestyle people wish to pursue. It is believed by the author that this process will eventually lead to an “autonomous movement of non-life.” My understanding is that the media, the entertainment or the everyday “spectacle” towards life as a whole is altered by people to make people less accepting for what they have already. Since the “deliberate distortions” has grown to be powerful enough to bridge people, I find that Debord looks at himself as a helpless victim of the situation. Although contradictory to what peoples’ lives actually are, Debord believes that it will eventually shape social life. Take for example, advertising is able to shape the “sphere of production.” Or easily worded, the how market would not be there if there were no marketing techniques.
The point that all of what social life and social organization seems to be is all mere appearance I think is both negative and positive since although the lifestyle shown by the media is fabricated and unrealistic, it makes people strive for more than what they have and may try harder to work for the lifestyle the media portrays.
Overall, I feel that Debord made a solid point in the media definitely provided a spectacle for people within to look out and vice versa. However, this exaggerated excerpt provided me with a more depressed perspective towards the impact of the “spectacle” in our lives, it makes me ponder intermittently.

Being a PA on a reality show is SO important.

This will be a recap of my interpretation of the individual points made in Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" (1968):

1. So, everything in today's society is spectacle.

2. So, we now exist alongside this parallel reality that is totally bogus and the complete inversion of real life. We've heard this one for years.

3. So, the biggest way we're being duped by this Society of Spectacle thing, is that it falsely brings us together. We all relate to and talk to eachother about what television shows and movies we're watching, what programs we're using, etc. It is a place where our most basic behaviors, longings, and emotions get magnified into a crystalized glitter parade. The reason this is deceptive is because our base behaviors, longings and emotions are rendered unrecognizable from their original state, and yet this is the version of these base feelings and desires that we view as the true universal forms of these experiences that everyone in the world has in common.

4. So, its not just a picture book on a coffee table, it's a picture book that dictates who and how we're supposed to talk to the people sitting around the coffee table. It isn't neutral, it actively engages with us and instructs us on how to behave.

5. So, this Society of Spectacle isn't the sole offspring of technology. It's not reality deliberately made over to be totally unrealistic. Rather, it is the byproduct of whatever we, as the human species is thinking and feeling. The spectacle is the inevitable exaggeration of our world view, like a folk tale that casts the staunch old woman across the street as a witch that wants to kill you and your children.

6. So, what Debord means by the 'mode of production' is basically a stand in word for civil society, its economics, manufacturing, etc. This parallel realm of spectacle, the more colorful version of our drab, overly complex lives, is what fuels the masses who hope to acquire some vestige of the reality shown on T.V. So, we're fueled by dreams that we dreamt up our selves, and we want to be rewarded with those same dreams. This madness came from us. And when we try to be savvy consumers wanting to make a heartfelt choice about what brand of toothpaste to buy, it won't matter, because the choice has already been made by the all powerful realm of spectacle. Society projected what sort of toothpaste it believed we should have into that parallel reality, and that parallel reality made versions of that vision available to us in our stores. So when we make a decision to by Tom's toothpaste, we're not making a choice. The spirit of the times has already made it for you.

7. So, there is this distance between the reality of who we really are, and how we are portrayed by the society of spectacle. This distance exists because the spectacle seems so different from our reality, which it is. But the truth is, its easy to loose sight of the fact that spectacle gets its ideas for movies and television programing from our everyday lives. But because spectacle, and television, looks so much better, we're convinced that our everyday lives can only aspire to the TV version of it, even though our real lives are original source material. So we're not giving ourselves enough credit. We each had a hand in writing Seinfeld.

8. So, you can't knock one without knocking the other. Sure, reality is more real than the spectacle, but it lends a lot of that reality to spectacle, not just in the form of inspiration, but because, when your producing a reality tv show, the crew has to really interact with each other. This lends that false reality a heavy dose of reality that almost seems to make task of producing a reality show seem important. And in a way it becomes important because people are literally living off the money they earn from such a silly thing. So its a give and take between the spectacle, the way it intrudes into our real lives, and then how we give from our doll drum lives the very real life toil that makes the spectacle possible. Its very cyclical, and according to Debord, the heart of our society is this back and forth give and take between the real and the unreal. It sounds like economics.

9. So, in this present system, things are so inverted that what we perceive as truth is actually false. Like, its wrong for people to be rich when they're are so many poor, but television shows the opposite, so the truth becomes, its true that their will always be rich and screw the poor. I think this is what he means.

10. So...forms of visual diversification are not real. And....don't forget, that the spectacle is a negation of life and even things like variety and choice are part of the same system.

11. So...you really can't talk about the spectacle, that alternate reality, without intimately knowing about facebook, or LOST, or all the other stuff. A person who isn't in the know about mainstream culture is perceived as socially irresponsible and a weirdo. Because its not just spectacle, it is a political social arrangement in which we live, so in a way, to not be on face book IS socially irresponsible. Bottom line, its going to be very tough to get out of this very pervasive matrix of existence.

12. So this passage confused me just a little bit. So I understand the the spectacle is generally regarded as the realm of entertainment and hollywood fairy tales that society adheres to, but having Debord suddenly bring up the possibility of the spectacles influence on the value system made me think of H.P. Lovecraft who's fringe writing was revered for its ability to delve into the unfathomable depths of human nature. So much of Lovecraft's writing was spent trying to describe the indescribable, and sometimes all he could do was fail to describe and apologize to the reader for not being able to do so. But it didn't matter. All he had to say was that something was beyond the realm of our earthly comprehension and, for a few brief moments, the reader would feel a sense of having more breathing room as he or she contemplated the possibility of something so different, so outrageous, that it wasn't broadcasted on television. So, I interpret point # 12 as the perceived values of what is appropriately right and appropriately wrong as shown on television. Anything outside that order is left to the fringe realm of anti-social horror writers.

13. We really love living in the Society of Spectacle. It is our reason for being.

14. May the fight for fame, fortune and fairy tale endings never end.

15. Long live the Society of Spectacle. It is our God.

Paint us, you destitute worthless piece of....

There is a reciprocity in the process of seeing. Between McLuhn and Guy Debord, there is this sense that vision is key to the way we relate to one another and the world around us. But Berger probably says it best when he describes the scenario of a person seeing a hill and knowing that because he can see the hill, whoever is on the hill can also see him. When Berger says that this reciprocity is more fundamental than spoken dialogue, he is addressing the general theme from the course readings we've covered so far, namely that there is this very complicated thing going on in the way we relate to images and the way they are being fed to us.

Berger's essay reminds us that there is an intrinsic perspective within images. They are records of the way in which the painter or photographer was relating to the person place or thing before them. He explains that the usefulness of these 'records' is dependent on the present days relation to the past, and this is how his thoughts mirror the social and existential themes made by McLuhn and Debord: We're prone to all kinds of delusion if we're not more aware of what is going on when we look at something. In this case, Beger claims that while interpretations of art are affected by current idiosyncrasies, these interpretations can also can also gauge the ways we are feeling about the present day, because if we're not feeling so great about the world in which we live, chances are, the meaning gleaned from old paintings will be 'mystified.' For Berger, like history, paintings offer vital clues to why we are the way we are, little microcosms of history that our as prone to politically motivated reinterpretations as past wars.

The bulk of Berger's essay describes the machinations of an elite minority controlling the value of art, and that because the elites are best served by the idea of a justified ruling class, they mystify the the more straightforward interpretations of paintings. Berger's key example of this 'mystification' is shown in the popular interpretations of Frans Hals' painting of 'Governors and Governesses of an Alms House.' Commissioned by the people who spared Hals' from total destitution, the innate awkwardness between the painter and the painted is downplayed in most art history interpretations. Rather, scholars focus more on superficial details, like the technique rather than the social implications.

Berger explains that the sensation of experiencing the characters in Hals' painting as people we might know is not just because of Hal's masterful skill, but rather, it is because our present day society shares similar values to the world in the painting, awkward exchanges and all.

It is this straightforward, and probably useful, interpretation of Hals' painting that is deliberately muddled by "a few specialized experts who are the clerks of the nostalgia of a ruling class in decline." In this remark and the discussion on mass producibility of old paintings, Berger describes a scenario where the influx of information and accessibility of art, not unlike our conversations on internet technology and the media, has been hijacked by a class of people who wish to perpetuate power dynamics advantageous to them. Or, as Berger puts it, "people who thrive off the 'continuing values of an oligarchic, undemocratic culture."

In his apt description of a new technology that alters the worlds sense of space and time, Berger describes how the camera fuels these old undemocratic dynamics by leaching off the perceived authority of old paintings--an authority derived from the simultaneous perception of all its elements. (This quality has been mentioned in my intro to design course) This is a simultaneity that film and photography lacks, because the weight of its visual statements is an easily manipulated sequence. Bogus spirituality and mystification also bolster a paintings authority and discourages the viewer from reading paintings like Hals' as staunch social commentary.

It seems that Berger believes that despite the mass producibility of old art pieces and the personalized uses they're appropriated for in albums, bedroom walls, or video projects, Berger believes that these paintings are still kept in the realm of the elite who, having had to compensate for a painting's loss of uniqueness and singularity (something to be experienced at a certain place in time by a few people at a time) began to promote the value of 'authenticity.' Berger shares the example of the Virgin on the Rocks housed in the National Gallery in London and its catalogued history that does not "deal with the meaning of the image" but describes, instead, in great detail, the person who "commissioned the painting, legal squabbles, who owned it, its likely date, the families of its owner." All of this is catalogued precisely to make it crystal clear that the paintings status as the 'original,' its art sanctioned indicator of value, is never in question.

It is little surprise then, that Berger ends his essay with an admonishment: Don't be ignorant about what's happening to you when you see an old painting, mass produced or the original. The way you experience it is probably the exact way someone is hoping you will, and that someone probably wants you to remain ignorant of the social and economic inequalities that give the painting its monetary value. Echoing our previous conversations on the social consequences of new information technology, Berger concludes that the pervasive presence of art in our lives offers us an opportunity to abandon set interpretations. He encourages us to get back to art's direct value as a window into a moment in the past. Because a clear cut glimpse at a moment between a bunch of creepy dutch people with cash and a destitute painter can enlighten us to our own shady and questionable interactions.

D E B O R D - Weapons of Mass Distraction

Guy Debord wrote The Society of the Spectacle in 1968; a piece of writing so dense with metaphor, any existentialist would be proud. It is a point by point timeline of society's change in freedom of thought after the conception of mass media, without ever actually saying the word "media".

I started this reading three or four times before I had a muddy clear idea of the direction he would be going with his allegorical-laden points. Each point I assigned a one word descriptor, almost similar to a fiction plot: exposition, conflict, climax, and resolution. Though, clearly, this story doesn't end with a mystery solved and the resolution Debord would have written into history.

Media grabbed ahold of all those with access to radio, television, and periodicals in the decades before this piece was written. From the perspective of my generation, this society seems to be the norm. It is hard to fathom living any other way, though under closer inspection, I am ashamed to admit being a willing working part of the subversive machine. Entertainment has changed immensely in the last hundred years, so has human contact, relationships, and priorities. Cannot blame a thinker such as Debord for feeling despair for the changing modern world. He watched the smoothing over of the inconsistencies in government, the boom of capitalism, and the lemming like behavior of the majority of the population. Media's motto is, "Wag the dog." The minority controlling the majority. There is no denying its power of mass distraction. Great thought and strategy is put into how to effect greater numbers, with seemless transitions into new wastes of time and money.

These things, I rarely thought about before starting full time at Art Center. I came in wanting to learn Graphic Design, and maybe get into advertising, as that is where the money is. It has taken a few semesters, but now concisous considering of that social obligation is a burdensome weight. On one hand, it is an advertiser's job to be persuasive. That coupled with the pollution created as a result - product waste, the paper and plastic industries, and the general decline in quality production. I can see why it was too much for Debord. I feel greatful that if I get down thinking about it, I can just turn on a TV or Facebook, and forget about reality for a bit.

Response to Guy Debord by Cesar Alvarado

In “The Society of the Spectacle”, Guy Debord shows us a broad emphasis about how our society has lost its own identity and allowed others to create it for them. He pushes his ideology further by explaining that our dreams and goals are only a byproducts of a pseudo-world. In my opinion Debord is actually uncovered what many of us already know but always avoid because we just don’t want to deal with it. We do not want to deal with the fact that our civilization has been built upon greed and wars. It has been sold to us with false hopes and motivational garbage. Everyday we hear how we must do it there way or how live a certain lifestyle. This “spectacle”, as Debord calls it, is an energy that has been brewing for centuries and it was not done over night. In the present, we are so caught up with keeping up because there is too much precious information out there for us to take in, and too worthy to let go by. Not all information is negative, but unfortunately there is always a benefactor behind a suggestion to better our lives. Why do we have to follow a certain code of life? Who is to say that we must be a certain way?

I know people that have extravagant lifestyles but do not enjoy what they have and they always end up wanting more and more – it is never enough. Reading Debord’s essay brought me back to thinking if this is all just a huge phony dream. Who are we kidding? Will we wake up one day? We saw the direct implications to change our society when Hitler took over Europe and that was done without remorse or shame. I think that was a perfect example of how easily human society can cling onto a false hope. The Nazi movement was done in a matter of years so it was noticeable by our standards, however, the Spectacle is being done subconsciously and some, like Debord, acknowledge this. There is not one man behind it, we are all in it together.

Response to "Spectacle" - Alejandro Lee

Guy Debord wrote about the dangers of fixed ideas and how heavily they have come to influence us. He specifically singles out the "spectacle" which he defines as an artificial moment which purports to be amazing in how novel it is, but actually works to reestablish the norms of society. On the contrary, the truly novel moments came in protest against this artificiality, culminating in the May 3rd, 1968 riots in Paris.



(additional photos of the '68 unrest)

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

Indeed, Debord and his fellow Situationists understood that the television could not be the means of conveying their revolutionary message; in part because television was controlled by the elite, but also because it was- as McLuhan put it- a "cold medium" that actually disengaged the audience on a whole.

Debord heralds a call to consciousness: we need principally to acknowledge the distinction between our real lives and the ideal life that is mentally grafted on us by mass media. The goal of the Situationists has proven elusive, because with the advent of industry and mass production, the masses spend their lives creating the commodities of a capitalist society.



And, to complete the cycle, the masses embrace seek a mental release from the grind of their lived lives by embracing the illusory life that is purported by the capitalist society.

If we can acknowledge the artifice, argues Debord, then we can also change it. He believes we ought engage the system using the same language as the system itself. The difference is that our key intent should be propelling a message other than consumption. This notion of a self-restrained revolution relates to McLuhan's problem about how people cannot accept new ideas if they stray too far from the established norm (only 10% new, instead of 75%).

Nonetheless, Debord's words are still important because the struggle for our consciousness is ongoing. We need to remain wary of the spectacle lest we allow it to dictate, over and over again, how we view our lives.

The Society of the Spectacle- Jillian Kasimow

In “The Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord writes about how the lives people live are representations of life, not actual life itself. The media produces images of certain lifestyles and after constantly being bombarded with these notions of what life should be, people actually begin to accept these falsehoods as real life. Debord writes “truth is a moment of falsehood” (9). People are so conditioned into believing that the spectacle is reality that the truth eventually becomes fake because it has become so foreign. Reality births the spectacle, thus making it an integral part of the dream state that results. However the spectacle is not reality because the images that form it are not reflections of the lives that people actually live. People come to embrace the spectacle after a while because there isn’t a way they can extricate themselves from it. The media has become an unquestionable presence in people’s daily lives, constantly there to reinforce the spectacle on a continuous basis.

Debord wrote this in 1967, but it particularly can be applied to today’s society. The line between what’s real and what’s not is no longer definable thanks in one part to the accessibility and ease of Internet sites. Blogs and social networks have given people a means to represent themselves in whatever way they please. On Facebook, people are allowed to carefully edit their profiles so that the public only sees what they want them to see. As a result, outsiders come to believe that the way people represent themselves online is truthful and entirely reflective of how their real lives are. They rarely take into consideration that people decontextualize information and pictures so that the end product always paints them in a positive light. Blogs act in the same way. The events and pictures that people put into the public realm are never guaranteed to be true but readers automatically assume they are. People live vicariously through these online outlets; they are able to live in a spectacle of altered reality. Reality has been made into a numbed dream, and that’s the way people have come to prefer it.

Reading was hard

The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord is simply about reality in the medias eyes. Like the previous reading “Ways of Seeing” this essay talks about what people see and from what they see is what they believe. The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images (par.4). Assuming this is true the media needs its viewers and the viewers need the media. However, in most cases the media is not always true; they control a big part of what we see, what we hear, and eventually what we buy. The job of the media, media including news, propaganda, advertising and entertainment is to pursued the viewer. However, not everything shown through media can be true; in most cases, all the news, adds, and so on are tweaked just to get the viewers attention and in doing so creates a larger fan base which in the end benefits the media. I think that society today relies on the media to much. We base our lives around all the media and by doing so, we are not aware of all the danger.

Guy Debord does an excellent job writing this essay as it probably took a lot of thinking and realization.

Response to GUY DEBORD - ANNA HUANG

The society of spectacle, the mass media equals to mass productions. When the media mass produce something, usually it’s not the reality that they are portraying. Reality is broken up by the media. What they choose to project is usually not the realistic side of life. As the viewers / audiences we only see what the media projects. So therefore what we see is what we think, the unrealistic life present to us for us would think it’s reality of our lives. For example in advertisement/s it shows the wonderful life of people but that is only a part, they would not show the realistic side because they want the viewer to think, “Oh if I buy that, or do that I will have a life just like the lady/guy on television.” The mass media divides the world that is made visible and invisible but also the spectacle is what unifies the society. In a way the spectacle separates us but it’s also very important to our lives. It, the spectacle of the media is like a monster it grows by itself. In other words I think the more viewers / audiences there is the more “power” the media can feed off of. The media lives off of the society. Images sells very well but sexy images can sell better. In other words, sex sells and that’s the truth. For example; if you were watching an advertisement with Megan Fox promoting a makeup brand. She is saying that maybe if “you” the viewer should get one if you want to look as great as herself. There will be a lot of people rushing to buy that particular brand. In other words people want to be part of that system.


If you want a more accurate or realistic information than you should get out of the system. But then again it’s almost impossible to do that because it’s everywhere.


In reality everyone is a copy cat, everyone buys what other people has or want what they don’t have. People have got to remember that everything on the television is not real; it’s an electronic box where they cropped out the realistic side of it. Also people in magazines or anywhere does not look as good as they seem to be because the photos are probably altered by Photoshop.

I agree with everything he say because it's quite true. I am sure this is an example of what he is trying to say: recently I saw my 5 year old cousin putting on makeup and at first I thought it was cute. So I asked her where did she learn to do that. She told me that she wants to be pretty like Hannah Montana on the Disney channel. I was speechless.

Guy Debord "Society of the Spectacle"

The definition and the actuality of the spectacle are far more complex and fluid in form than that which is able to be captured in a generic fashion. In his essay “Society of the Spectacle,” Guy Debord has determined that the media, rearing its many ugly heads in the form of advertising, news, propaganda and actual consumption of entertainment, has all but devoured our consciousness and constantly makes demands on our attention. This spectacle has become our unreal reality, or the means to an end, in and of itself. It is both the outcome and the goal of the dominant mode of production; it is a spectacle of a spectacle---a product of itself and the chief product of modern-day society (142).

We have become a society of looking, admiring the fascination of abomination, due to the pervasive and autonomous nature of the spectacle. Images help to bridge the concept of reality and then the spectacle is born. Although the spectacle is not specifically a collection of images, it is a social relationship between people which is mediated by images (142). These forms of media often contradict each other, because although they provide unity, the unity also creates a divide and, at times, drives isolation; as Debord notes, it is evidence of a reciprocal alienation or the essence and underpinning of society as it exists (143). Interestingly enough, Debord also notes that these diversities and contrasts actually denote the appearance of the spectacle, rather than providing a dichotomy between reality and image.

In the end, the spectacle becomes a product of itself, a vicious circle of events which is most evident in industrialized nations, which also live in contradiction with themselves. On one hand, while these nations are in abundance of convenience, luxury and white noise, they are also ripe with destitution and squalor.

The Society of The Spectacle

The Society of The Spectacle outlines essentially the current state of affairs of our world. Basically, the idea espoused is saying that the state of “spectacle” is all that we do now. Spectacle is the state we are stuck in which envelops our everyday lives, sets social norms, and promotes wants, desires, and structure for those things in our society i.e. celebrities, movies, video games, styles, fashions, icons, and entertainment. This state of spectacle is maintained through media, which is controlled, by production, or our capitalistic/consumerist society. The spectacle, as I understand it, is a means to numb, hypnotize, and control the masses to keep those who control the means of production in control and at the top of the social/economic pecking order. I feel there is a large degree of truth to what this article is saying, however it is not as pervasive or urgent (at this point) as the essay claims. This is not to say that the current trend is moving in a positive direction, though. With the every increasing, exponential rate of technology and its influence on media, production, networking, and social structures, it is imperative that people pay as much attention to what is going on around them and the forces, which are being focused on us as well. In a more esoteric and relative sense, there have been, and for the foreseeable future, will be, an elite group of those who use some measure of control weather it be media, religion, law, etc. to control the majority of the masses. This is the way humans have got along from the beginning of recorded history, and I do not see prolific turning point in that system occurring anytime soon. The end.

-Robert Wilkins

Reading Response to "Ways of Seeing" 1971

The theme of this class has been developing a new perception of the world we live in today. Each reading and discussion we have had has pushed the walls of my understanding further and further apart, almost like the opening of the flood gates - any moment, I'll be drowning in overwhelming enlightenment.

"Ways of Seeing" by John Burger is an essay about how perception has be broadened by human discovery, the eventual adoption into popular belief, and the freedom of education. This is a circular action, that has speed up dramatically with the advent of a press, media, and in our lifetime, the internet.

The essay starts with perception of art in the middle ages, where staged realistic paints were scrutinized for small facial inflections. My 21st century mind regards this reading into basically nothing as a desire to get more from art but the society had not advance far enough to translate deeper meaning with a brush. That, and art was made for and controlled by only those that could afford it. Then with the advent of the camera which could accurately record time, and condense events down to a single frame, art was freed to explore perspective. Reversely, people looked back at early styles of painting with less reverie. The once awe inspiring curl of Mona Lisa's lip has been diminished in importance as the generations see world perception expand.

Works of art, fiction, and opinion that were once confined to one origin, and were reserved only to the upper class, have been reproduced and shared with anyone that has the ability to reach out and grasp it. For better or worse, we are now in an age where the computer savvy have access to infinite pictorial and textual resources. If one was to measure the internet from its beginnings as a long anticipated bang in 1991, and the rate that content is uploaded, would it be similar to the expansion of our universe? Is this act of freedom of choice by search and sharing making us more literate and enlightened? What we have been confronted with is the issue of authority. Anyone can share their uneducated opinion. This act of quick and senseless review and retort, though distorted and misleading, is yet another expansion perception.

“The Society of Spectacle” by Guy Debord response by Natalie Embrey

In The Society of the Spectacle, author Guy Debord points out that the society of production presents the image as a spectacle. This frozen image contradicts the way life was prior to its use because it presents spectacle to the viewer without them being involved. In Debord’s view this destroys the ”former unity of life.” (par.2) He continues claiming that the collection of images are no the spectacle but the spectacle is the ”social relationship between people that is mediated by images.” (par.4) The spectacle evolves into a means of unification among the society because we have all adopted images into our daily communication and visual consumption. The spectacle is a world view “that has been actualized, translated into the material realm.” (par. 5) The spectacle is referred to as “both the outcome and the goal of the dominant mode of production.” (par. 6) The goal of the dominant mode of production is to saturate our society with image based media and the result of the goal is the understanding of image based media by the society. “The spectacle epitomizes the prevailing model of social life.” (par. 6) Debord goes into a discussion of reality versus the image. The spectacle is invented but it is the “product of real activity.” (par.8) Debord speak s of the spectacle having positivity. “All it says is: ‘Everything that appears is good; whatever is good will appear.’” (par. 12) I have trouble believing that our society deems all images to be inherently good. Some images are made to be artful and yet hold a message and a subject matter that are decidedly not good. Is Debord saying that we assume it is good to make the image regardless of subject matter? He says that the spectacle is redundant. Essentially that the goal of perpetuating the creation of imagery is the continued perpetuation of more imagery or as he puts it; “basking in the perpetual warmth of its own glory.” (par. 13) “For the spectacle, … ends are nothing and development is all.” (par. 14) The cycle of perpetual creation is the driving force. The creators of images have no reason to cease creating in a world driven by the image. He closes by saying that “the spectacle is the chief product of present-day society.” (par. 15) While not all jobs are directly involves in the making of images, most modern fields will rely on image based content at some point in their marketing.

John Berger's: Ways of Seeing - Entry by Cesar Alvarado

It is interesting to read an article that dissects how human beings perceive a piece of artwork based on the context in which it has been placed in by different generations. John Berger taps into our unconscious to reevaluate the information that was been handed to use throughout the years. Not long ago, I took my friend to the museum to look at their contemporary collection. He was not impressed at all and like many that I’ve heard before, he said, “My little sister can do this!” It wasn’t long before I began to explain the value of some of these paintings. I chose my words wisely and explained the monetary benefactor behind these pieces. The monetary value of the paintings caught his attention and then I proceeded to explain how Pop Art had revolutionized the way we perceived art. For example, I explained to him the meaning behind Andy Warhol’s “Campell”s Soup Cans” set, and told him that he really had no intention to explain his art work, but left it to the eye of the beholder. For Warhol, it was not so much about creating a Renaissance painting, which followed a specific set of guidelines used by everyone during those times. In fact, it was the contrary, he wanted to impact the viewer and make them question the philosophy behind it. To go even further, you didn’t even have to question it if you didn’t want to, you didn’t have to even see it. Pop Art is a perfect example of what Berger has written about in this article, except he used glorious masterpieces that have become cultural phenomena’s. Artist such as Leonardo Davinci and Vincent Vangough are ultimately seen like gods in their own genres. In a sense they are just as much commercialized as any Warhol piece.

Here is where Berger shines, and he questions the reason behind our perception of the visual content, which has been implanted in our psyche. Since we were in our tender years, we learned that the Renaissance era was classified as the great rebirth of human society. Great scholars, philosophers and artists came out of this era. In a sense it has been presented to us in relation to that of the Bible’s philosophies, and I say this because the Renaissance was all, if not mostly based on religion. The television was far from its invention and the Internet was not even a thought. The paintings of Judgment Day actually made people very afraid. The fear allowed great powers to manipulate and distort reality. The art was used as a sort of propaganda for the Catholic Church and it worked for many years. Today, somehow or another we have came across a piece of art that represents centuries of history, whether it was taught to us in elementary school or exposed to us in a snippet on TV. These small historical visual presentations have accumulated in our minds to the point that we have created an assessment of that image. We have created value, respect and sometimes, even worship. It becomes our own reality. Our perception has been manipulated with years of research that was given to us in textbooks, classes and home. When my friend and I were looking though the vast collection of Modern artists, I noticed that he became somewhat humbled about the whole situation. The more I conveyed the historical information about the pieces of art, the more his perception shifted. The museum itself was intimidating and the securities and rich couple next to us describing what they felt when they were looking at the painting, also helped.

Ways of Seeing by John Berger – Entry by Natalie Embrey

In “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger, the author discusses the nature of sight. Every day we analyze our surroundings and ourselves in the physical world. Berger makes the argument that dialogue is an attempt to verbalize what we think about what we see and how others see things.
Berger defines images as “a sight which has been recreated or reproduced.” (pg. 9) He makes a general statement regarding images being inspired by real life sights. But not all artists pull their inspiration from sights found in the physical world. Berger points out that photographs are not images devoid of influence. The photographer crafts an image by editing out the details they deem unnecessary. “…(E)very image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our way of seeing.” (pg 10) Essentially every viewer brings to a piece of art their history and preferences learned throughout their lifetime.
Berger points out that images were used to display how people/things once looked. During the Renaissance the artist role was considered more closely. The artist was not a historian but a creator that captured a scene from a specific point of view. Berger continues to claim that “images are more precise and richer than literature.” (pg 10) But images are not fact. They are biased invention of the individual.
Berger continues critiquing the issues he sees with art criticism. The main focus being the mystification of art history by the elite and educated. He then moves to the discussion of perspective in art. The use of perspective was a uniquely European for a time. “Perspective makes the single eye the center of the visible world.” (pg.16) When the camera was introduced it caused many painters to lose interest in meticulously copying the world as we see it. The impressionists and cubists took creative liberty with the world that they saw.
Berger theorizes that the camera diminishes the experience of viewing an original piece of work because copies are available. The availability of art anywhere takes it out of context of its original commission. The painting was once a part of the place it was created to hang in. While the copy image of the painting does end the uniqueness of the images content, the photograph of the painting will never replace the experience of seeing the canvas. And perhaps for some viewers the mass proliferation of an image can add to the epic nature of the original when it is ultimately viewed. This of course would depend on the viewer buying into the hype that the art establishment puts into particular works, such as the Mona Lisa.
Berger continues by discussing how in our culture today the importance of a piece of work seems influenced by the cost it will fetch at auction. Also, a great deal of effort is put into the authentication that an image is genuinely categorized. He makes the point that most of society doesn’t care about the concerns of the art elite. The percentage of people who visit museums is highly linked to the amount of education received. The idea of art as a luxury is directly linked to affluence. If a person has to work 3 jobs to keep food on the table, they probably won’t have much time to incorporate art into their lives.
Continuing with reproduction, Berger refers to the crop as a means of distorting the original intention of the artist. Motion picture with narration can pervert the viewers reading of a piece of work by defining the areas and order in which they view details. When in front of the original piece the viewer would have the freedom to view the piece as they see fit. Berger closes by discussing how the inclusion of text affects the viewers opinion of a piece. Which brings us back to the fact that each viewer brings with them their own history when viewing art. If the viewer becomes more informed of the history of a piece, their opinion of it can be swayed.

"Ways of seeing" Paul Delmont's critical response

In is article "ways of seeing" John Burger discusses many ideas that are surprisingly relevant to modern times despite the fact that Burger wrote this article roughly thirty eight years ago.  one of the first interesting points that Burger brings up is the concept of perception being correlated to knowledge and belief.  To back up this intriguing idea Burger creates a strong foundational argument for this point by giving the example of how men from the middle ages viewed fire much differently than most people do today because of the fact that they "believed in the physical existence of hell".  Burger is very much so an advocate of perception and vision, but on the other hand he seems to speak against the credibility and reputation of written word, although he ironically has chosen to describe his point of view with words as well as pictures.   Burger later gets into questioning the credibility and importance of vision because as he explains vision and perception are more often then not affected by assumptions about art.  I found it interesting that the assumptions that Burger described were basic ideas that most people probably feel like they have a firm understanding of, but in reality, as Burger explains, most people have different ideas of what beauty or and truth really mean.  After establishing a firm basis of perception and the way that it fluctuates, Burger begins to transition into describing the way that viewing art affects the society and its members.  According to Burger, when a person sees art, what that person is really seeing is history.  This concept is important and extremely relatable to the art of photography for obvious reasons, especially when considering the modern trend of digital photograph, although this article obviously was written long before the invention of digital photography.

Response to “Ways of Seeing” - Alejandro Lee

In a nutshell, Berger argues that we the masses should drop the scholarly pretenses, as presented to us, on past works of art and instead interpret those works as we see fit. But there’s more to it: while Berger’s essay specifically targets the analysis of cultural elites as faulty, one must press on. One has to say: no one analysis is truly correct, nor is it wrong if only on an individual level.

Experiencing a work of art, each individual will form an opinion that is entirely unique to them. Indeed, each individual can be subject to alternating opinions about one single work of art, depending on their mood or what they’ve come to believe in. The meaning behind an image is and always shall be ephemeral because we are ephemeral. When we pass on, we each take with us that unique experience and it falls on the next generation (or era) to form its own opinions.

That element of human mortality is the basic dynamic at play in our understanding of images. The X factor, though, is technology. The invention of the printing press, photography, and other measures of mass reproduction propelled social considerations beyond the older models of thought.

It is worth noting the speed of these technological advancements. While initially some innovations such as the press took centuries to become socially significant movers and shakers, the newer innovations came about at a faster and faster pace. The key is they began to occur within a given individual’s lifespan. Now, technological progress supersedes the social “reset button” that is inherent in our mortality. Instead of each generation (or era) having one set context with which to view the world, it is now almost a single, amalgamated generation with new world views that are constantly being generated.

Within this loosely defined multi-generation, we can now see what Berger was saying about the fluidity of meaning in an image. As well, McLuhan’s point that the medium is more significant than the content is also validated. The content and, indeed the physical manifestation, of a work of art cannot be frozen in time but will inevitably and always be in a state of flux when up against the forces of technology and mortality.

Ways of Seeing Response by Melanie Hung

In the excerpt of the Ways of Seeing, John Berger takes us through a snippet of history regarding the simple concept of seeing and then explains the progression of that to the development of photo imaging and it's impact on people. Through reading this packet, one is able to identify the importance of each person's unique vision and also contemplate on the controversial fact of seeing a real piece of artwork versus viewing a reproduction of it.

Since explanations of most given subjects "never quite fits the sight," the text explains briefly the fundamentals of vision and how people use it as a much richer communication tool if compared to verbal dialogue. It also introduces the idea that after people established their sight, they realized their relationship with surroundings and with other people. It is understandable that one has never thought about vision in such a way, from the perspective of a normal person, the ability to see combined with the ability to feel is taken for granted. In a way the opening of the text lets us think deeper and in a way be more appreciative of our surroundings and the fact that we can establish its visual existence. In the constant search of the "relation between things and ourselves," we developed the sense of using this ability to tell and present information as a means of communication. This is when the Berger introduces use of imaging.

It is said that the difference between imaging and painting is that usually the photographer would choose a particular theme or subject for his or her photo and as for paintings, the artist is about to "reconsitute" or in other words paint what he is willing to paint. As images gradually became popular, it was a way of "outlast[ing]" whatever topic was being represented. That was a more realistic and reliable way of capturing the moment. This medium, which was "more precise and richer than literature", was considered to be far more powerful.

If one is to compare imaging, a realistic way of presenting a moment in time, with fine art, one can see that the use of fine art was originally for the same purpose as imaging. And after the invention of photography, the use of fine arts changed its path dramatically. Berger explains that a person's perspective, similar to the old style of painting was one single perspective. In contradiction to that, photos and films were able to capture more than one angle of one particular subject. People were then able to identify one object from many different views. This influenced the path of fine art painting into a more modern era. During this period of time, artists such as Picasso was able to paint in a method called Cubism, or the representation of one object with many different facets on one plain. The use of photography and fine art painting then diverged from having the same purpose to total different ideals.

Berger then compares and constrasts the benefits of seeing an authentic painting and seeing a reproduction of it. An experiment of made and it is explained that after a while, people do not see paintings for their original meaning but they consider more of whether or not the painting is the actual thing or not. Whether or not the painting is real or is a replica has the same impact of people is still controversial and has little to do with the price and value. The value of the painting, spiritually, was then the ultimate way of determining its worth.

Like a quote in the last paragraph states, "the art of the past no longer exists as it once did," it is definite that art is changing day by day. It should not be long before the next invention brings upon a new wave.

Ways of Seeing by John Berger

It is our primal and instinctive nature to perceive and to communicate what we see, from our earliest childhood memories to our adult lives. This need to communicate is based on our own individual preconceptions or through historical context. However, there is a disconnect present between the object we perceive and our perception of the object. And we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves [Page 9].

The image itself is a sight which can be recreated or reproduced [Page 9]. Following the invention of the camera, however, the meanings shifted, as the scope of the images taken increased dramatically to extend to the masses. Through reproduction, there is a wider availability to works of art, but at what cost?

Works of art, which are produced on a large scale through this process of reproduction, lose their uniqueness---and, in some cases, destroys their meaning and/or market value. “The camera isolated momentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the idea that images were timeless” [Page 18]. Berger states that then, the meaning of the image has changed, as the image of art, which used to stand on its own, has ultimately become the “original of a reproduction” [Page 21]. In addition, its meaning could also fracture or multiply, due to the fact that the work of art is now perceived by the masses, rather than a select few.

Because fine works of art, specifically paintings, were often times tied to religion, access was limited to the select few, the cultured minority of academia, the rich and the powerful. Featured solely in frescoes and murals in religious churches or chapels, these paintings were unique; they were not seen in any other location at a given time. In the past, the value of great works of art was defined by their rarity, as opposed to the present time, when works of art are defined by market value, which is sometimes inflated by “bogus religiosity” [Page 23].

Now, as images of art are constantly broadcasted across various media spectrums---television, photographs, billboards---these images have become mainstream and have lost all authority. Images of art have become “…ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantital, available, valueless, free” [Page 32].

Reading Response- JILLIAN KASIMOW

In Ways of Seeing, Berger writes that because of the mass reproduction of art, “images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free” (32). When art was only available to a certain group of people years ago, its context was defined by social status and elitism. Since the invention of photography, art has become more accessible to the masses. Berger implies that because of this wide dissemination of images, art has lost the importance and distinction it once had. In today’s present society, reproduction has introduced a tension that is constantly striving to be balanced. Duplication of images has degraded art by making it available to people who misconstrue its original intentions but it has simultaneously been used to reinforce this old notion “that nothing has changed, that art, with its unique undiminished authority, justifies most other forms of authority, that art makes inequality seem noble and hierarchies seem thrilling” (29). Though Berger discusses this constant disequilibrium, he doesn’t explain how it can be stabilized. How can art be made available to all people while still preserving its dignity?

Because of time and circumstance, art will never be the same as what it was at the time of its creation. This fact has to be acknowledged that even though reproduction might have introduced a new way of manipulating arts’ context, the original context of a piece was already lost before. Berger discussed that people’s perception of an art piece change based on the experiences they have gone through. He writes “the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (8). Even without reproduction, the viewer is going to see a piece of art and interpret it based on their frame of reference because “we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves” (9). By doing this, the viewer automatically perceives art in a way that is most likely different from what the artist implied, changing the original context immediately. Perhaps value of art should not be based on whom it is available to and how it is made available but rather on how open ended it is. A celebrated facet of art is how it can be viewed and applied in so many different ways. Does art really have no value just because its context has shifted?

Reading Response - ANNA HUANG

It’s true; people want to see what they want to believe in. Like our memories we tend to block out certain events that are not so pleasant. In the reading package it explains how we see things in life. How we choose to “see” which led us to be aware of our surroundings, and also let us know that other people can see ourselves. When an artist paints or draws something they are able to choose what place, object or person to draw. They are able to use their own perspective, their own point of view in their drawings. Frans Hal is one of the few artists who were able to paint a portrait of people where others can see the personalities, traits and maybe even the habits that person might have. When we open a magazine, books or the internet and look at the photograph of paintings, we see an image that has been captured by a camera and being reproduced so many times the picture itself loses the original meaning. The meanings might start to change or it can involve into many new meanings. Overall the original image or painting is destroyed. Also because art can be reproduce so many times it’s being interpreted differently by different author of a particular book or an article. For example a magazine featured a picture of a little tiger playing with a mouse; automatically the reader would think it’s a very cute picture. Then suddenly the reader reads the small quote below the picture, “Tiger cub hunting its dinner.” After reading the quote it changes the whole story that the reader originally thought it meant. Which is the same as the example the writer used Van Gogh’s last painting for example. When you look at Gogh’s last painting you would probably say it’s a wonderful painting, but when you read what it really meant it definitely adds or changes the meaning the viewer originally had.

Reading Response Calvin Lim

In the reading, it talks about how one’s sight affects what he/she believes or knows. As it states in the essay, “We only see what we look at.” People simply block out what they want to see or what they don’t want see. From that, the essay is stating that from an image they are able to either situate themselves in the present or the past. Famous painter Frans Hals did an amazing job in portraying people through his artwork. Not only did Frans Hals paint an image to capture that moment, he did it in a way where one can feel the emotions and he certainly convinces one “that we can know the people portrayed.” As the invention of the camera came along it changed the way people viewed the world. For instance, a painting was unique in the sense that it was painted of a certain object or place; the camera, had the ability to reproduce those same images which ruined the uniqueness. The problem of reproduced artwork was the sense that it was no longer original and since the reproduction was unoriginal, people did’t appreciate it. People look at an image and from that image think what they want; however, if the image has some kind of data that is known, the viewer than see’s the image in a different perspective. For example, in the reading there is a painting of a cornfield with birds flying our of it. We flip the page and the same image is shown except, under the image says: This is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself. After seeing this, the image changes; knowing this data completely changes the mood and also changes how the viewer portrays the image. Today, the way we see art is based on what we expect and what we’ve experienced.

postin'

Even though our technology is progressing at an exponential rate, there is a certain relative consistency of our perception of this phenomenon, thus we experience the change in a similar way. Marshall recognized that the 60s and late 2000s both held a significance in regards to technology, media, and culture, however we must be critical when considering the time we live in now. We have a myopic view of our own position in this whole situation. In a way the media today can be seen like a dog chasing his own tail, and this very point in time the dog has finally caught it, what comes next is any one's guess. The great depression was another specific example Marshall used, as he did with media, and warned to not pay attention to content. The reasons for a depression are unimportant, more important is the fact we are economically depressed. There is a deeper and more profound understanding to be had of the dualistic economy that is continually shifting back and forth in an attempt to achieve equilibrium.

Media's Message

The author believed that the era of mechanization was radically different from the technological era of today. Mechanization and the age of reason brought about the breaking down of technological developments into a fragmented sequence. What the author refers to as "electric technology" could describe the internet and media of today and in contrast to mechanization, it is much faster and ties society to more immediate forms of expression and sharing of ideas. This is what he means buy describing modern media as an extension of our cognitive selves...the internet is a collective storehouse of everybody's brains and experiences.

Tied into his belief that media forms of technology are extensions of ourselves, all back lash reactions to the age of reason were embodied in popular usage of the printing press...like newspapers and later photography and television (i.e. popular culture). The author encourages the sort of fundamental awareness exhibited by the cubists who called attention to a painting being more than a series of optical illusions and showing it as the worked canvas that it was. The authors overarching opinion was that...like the cubists, if we are going to able to harness the global interconnectedness of 'electrical technology' (i.e. the internet) then we need to be able to look at the medium for what it is....the primary mover and shaker of cultural change in our society. He reiterates over and over, that the content of new media constantly distracts us from our ability to look at how the media is squeezing our sense of space and time, shaping our world and culture. Using the example of the economists that prevent depressions by studying them, he encourages candid, unobstructed analysis of the media itself.

He warns that "like the rational minded westerner in the orient" or in africa, we are prone to getting shaken up and potentially traumatized by being confronted with a new mode of thinking. The danger, he seems to argue, is that if the media continues to change our lives in such pervasive ways...our old hat notions of time and space...need to change with it or else...we're going to be overwhelmed...and we'll die. So...this is why its important to stop worrying about violence and racism on youtube, and start looking at the ways in which youtube is killing our old world ability to interact. Still he doesn't outright discourage the sea of cultural changes occurring because of rapid technology and pervasive forms of media...but he tells us we had better damn well understand how its changing us.

Even though our technology is progressing at an exponential rate, there is a certain relative consistency of our perception of this phenomenon, thus we experience the change in a similar way. Marshall recognized that the 60s and late 2000s both held a significance in regards to technology, media, and culture, however we must be critical when considering the time we live in now. We have a myopic view of our own position in this whole situation. In a way the media today can be seen like a dog chasing his own tail, and this very point in time the dog has finally caught it, what comes next is any one's guess. The great depression was another specific example Marshall used, as he did with media, and warned to not pay attention to content. The reasons for a depression are unimportant, more important is the fact we are economically depressed. There is a deeper and more profound understanding to be had of the dualistic economy that is continually shifting back and forth in an attempt to achieve equilibrium.

Marshall McLuhen's essay on Media was initially panned by academia because he addressed pop culture. To understand pop culture, one must first define high culture. Sociology cites "high culture" as an inevitable expression of elite people who have the wealth and power. This elitism is still evident today (e.g. a director inserting R-rated content in an otherwise PG movie because to dissuade labels of being a "kid's movie").

In the past, high culture drove the speed of technological advances, since elites had the necessary resources. Specialized workers are often trained to make products they have knowledge, and often are passionate, about. This leads to natural advancements in technology. Movies and the theaters, for example, were first used to entertain the elite class. Photography, too, was developed for those who had money.

The "trickling down" process was first prevalently seen in 1436, where the Gutenberg printing press was developed to quicken the production of books so that citizens of all class could have access to them. Photography and theater are more modern examples.

At the time that this article was written in 1964, the social thought landscape had been directly affected by the events in the past two decades. The most prolific event in this segment of history, which spawned massive change, was World War 2. This event had ended with the nuclear bomb, which instilled a permanent fear into average citizens that life could be purposely or accidently wiped out. Veterans came home and started families under the promise of a better existence. The 50s, we see the advent of television broadcast and the blossoming of mass media. For the first time, children are raised watching television and thus the beginning of marketing towards youth. Unbeknownst to the people of the time, this was the beginning of television programming telling us how to think, react, and behave. Everyone saw the first man walk on the moon, which had people thinking about what should they be fearful of not just in Asia and Europe, but in the universe. While processing the present advancement in culture, people now dreamed about the future. Programming fed into this with shows like “Lost in Space” and “The Twilight Zone,” which only further pushed these ideas into the forefront of society’s mindset. An obsession with spacemen, little green men, and the lingering memory of “The Bomb” changed how people felt about permanence on earth.