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.