Where there's light there's laughter

There's always light at the end of the tunnel.

Unless you are in a donut shaped tunnel. Then I ask you: how did you get in there in the first place?

If you find yourself in a donut, then you must have dug your way in. And no, you aren't alone. There is still an end for you-- crawl back out. Make right with whatever trouble you made, and get out of there.

GAH bye

Simplify

Word of the day: Simplify.

I don't know where I'm moving to or where "life will take me", but I am packing. All I know is my lease is ending next week and I might as well pack.

If my room (back at "home-home") blew up, I'd be fine. I don't have any items there that I use or really care so much about. But thinking about each item one by one, individually, I can't imagine myself tossing voluntarily.

I started college in September of 2007.

I packed my essentials and moved to San Diego to live in a double. Our space was limited to our loft beds (desk+bed+stairs that lead to our bed). It was a common saying as a freshman to resort to a facepalm and cry out loud, "It's at home!" LBD, floss, xbox, clean underwear, what-have-you.

But you pick up things. Whether these items be from old roommates, craigslist, swag, job fairs, school events, etc... you find yourself every year (or just about every year), packing your things to move to a new dorm room, new apartment---- and oh my gosh how do you have so much stuff?

Nordstrom sent out mass emails with the headline: "Less is More" regarding neutral hues for fall and simple details on high heels, purses and the like. Ironically, less is more that you have to go purchase more, to appear to be simple and low-maintenance.



Surely I fall victim to such marketing. I have so much junk all over the place. Things I purchased with the notion that the item will be of practical value to me. Things I snagged off booths at school events just because it was free and available. Things I received for being part of organizations. Things I kept because it might be of some use to me somedayyyyillbesomadwhenidonthaveitlateryyyyy.

My point is




I feel the need to vent because I am overwhelmed with the amount of packing and throwing away I need to do.

This blog post itself is clutter.


Originally this blog was for a class assignment. Everything below this post was for a digital rhetoric class I took for my last quarter. Holla CAT125.

But now it's going to be my personal blog. So there.

Long post, but lots of provocative pictures!

 You are what you eat.

And in our society you consume (beyond solely edible products) materials. Materials that are marketed to you through advertising. What is featured on advertisements, too frequently so, are not the actual items that the company is selling, but an image. Ads can show a particular way of life that can be achieved using the marketed product

Then what exactly is this? 

The Nikon s60. Detects up to 12 faces.

Humorous, and the viewer can chuckle at the peeping neighbors, given that an ad like this is most likely to be displayed in a male-dominated-medium-- like GQ or Esquire. That raised another question for me: sexual objectification of women isn't displayed only in areas dominated by male viewers. 

Sisley, a fashion company known for its provocative image is featured often in many fashion magazines. For a company that caters both to males, females, and children, Sisley's ads seem to degrade the female as a sexual object, blatantly displaying her role.

Sisley 2001 ad

What exactly is this image selling? There are no images of clothes-- and milk has very little to do with fashion. But as many of us consumer can testify: sex sells. It doesn't matter what it sells, but whatever it is, it's selling it.

It doesn't matter what this woman is capable of, but her appealing cleavage is all that matters-- and is all that is needed to define her.

/sarcasm.

The list for such ads go on and on. We are immersed by these ads. Jean Kilbourne definitely comes to my  mind as I write this. Her study shows that in 1999, people were exposed to about 3000+ ads per day. Now it's 2011. It's hard to put a number on the amount of ads we could be exposed to now, especially with the internet. We are surrounded by these ads, and our cultural norms are dictated by these dominating images. What we make sense as reality is greatly influenced by these ads. 

Glamorizing drug use, overly thin models, provocative nip slip, "fashion junkies...-- the "display" of the usage of cocaine, a topic of criticism in the fashion industry-- Sisley demonstrates a licentious, unethical stance in showing what is fashionable, desired,  and "cool".

The Sisley ad is one ad that I found recently and chuckled at the way Sisley poked fun at a controversial issue surrounding the fashion industry. Until I stop and think at how "wrong" this ad is. It's not an image that should be in the hands of a young teenage girl who is interested in pretty clothes.

But back to my point on sexual objectification-- of course it is not only women that are objectified in this way: men are too. However there are far less images of men being portrayed in this way (in a non-joking way), although the numbers are steadily rising. It certainly does not count as being progressive.

An S&M type of image-- the far right girl seems to have a whip/stick. The men in both this image and the bottom are shown as being submissive and inferior.

American Apparel, highly criticized for it's amateur porn-esque poses and images allows for a democratized style of modeling. This is definitely debatable as certain individuals deemed "attractive" by a model scout decides who is able to pose, but formal training and experience in modeling is not necessary. Woody Allen is able to pose for underwear. It's almost humorous to see him there, but it could be that this image is acceptable because he is male. He becomes reduced in his vulnerability-- in just his underwear, but the sexual eye of the viewer would analyze this picture differently than if they saw..oh I don't know, Andrea Arnold in this same pose. Society feels squeamish seeing a woman in this way.

Advertisements, though I enjoy its wit and clever way of making items seem appealing, can exert its power in demeaning ways.

Throughout my blog I want to stress the power of advertisements in creating needs and shaping customer preferences. When customers see repeating images, especially gender-based images that translate into norms, it becomes hard not to expect such roles of the people who associate with that gender. Pressure is placed on women, and women expected to fulfill these expectations. Desire is cultivated on the part of the woman. Women are to be pleasing to the (lewd) eye, and well, boys... will be boys.

Granovetter likes this.

If only we had a phone that scrolled up and down rather than left to right like the iPod would all of our social etiquette problems be solved.

According to Microsoft.

But let's backtrack a little:
Back within the bubble of what is also known as high school, was a habit that churned ever so slowly (due to high prices) from the popular kids, trickling down the hierarchy, then to the masses. Walking with your nose pointing down seemed to be the new cool thing to do-- contrary to what mother and father said about body language and displaying (a lack of) confidence.

The new Sidekick, complete with all its buttons and appealing "flip" of the screen was the main buzz. Slowly a few of my friends were less talkative at the lunch tables, texting and checking their myspace. Who could they possibly be talking to, when all their friends were right in front of them?

It seemed my friends were maintaining constant contact with people in front of them, a few feet away from them, a few blocks away from them and a billiongazillion miles away through the virtual world. Unless they were following Mark Granovetter's theory on the importance of having weak social ties to find new opportunities (i.e. getting a job), which I highly doubt, my friends in high school were more concerned about maintaining their virtual connections than being engaged in their right-in-front-of-you, physical ones.

Interesting.

Then towards the end of high school, this phenomenon shall I say, escalated. Students were smuggling in their phones during graduation to text and update their myspace statuses. As important was the graduation ceremony, it seemed like every other student had their cellphones out. Same in college, during our convocation in our new university. No event seemed worthy of our full attention.

A cellphone does more than just send and receive calls. It has become a carrier of applications. New cellphone marketers emphasize all of a phone's qualities-- yet none mention its basic abilities: calling and receiving phone calls. This would be redundant; we expect phones to do this. We want to know what else it can do. These applications are supposed to make our lives easier. With less time researching about the best restaurants, we can simply yelp it on our cellphones. UCSD students no longer have to wait outside for the bus. There is an application that tracks the bus route and where the bus currently is. We are promised to be given more free time with the use of these phones.

Yeah right. People are more consumed with their phones to have time to be efficient. But my view is biased.

Microsoft does an interesting way of saying that it does the exact same thing all phones do, but with a better interface. It's not the people's fault. It's the cellphone's fault. People are too busy trying to figure out how to best use their phones. Applications are great, checking your email incessantly is great, and constantly receiving facebook notifications is great. You can finally have the time and the ability to be a fully engaged human being while constantly being alert for notifications and updates.

Work, Schmork.

This video definitely starts out with the typical conception of an office environment. Hardly humane cubicle/work areas for individuals to work like zealots all in the favor of their head-honcho: the Boss. Shades of gray proliferate through the office. The typical office, at least. Fluff is not necessary for office workers, where clients often do not loiter. Office is for workers, and workers only need work in order to work. But from this kind of scene, what happens when a few employees explore their creativity and sense of humor in... dun dun dun!! the office?

  Perhaps this is why this office video was also highly entertaining.

Life is beautiful. Work can be too.
This is OfficeMax's tactic in trying to change the common conception about the drabbiness that is the workplace. Rather than marketing themselves as a company that just sells office supplies, OfficeMax wants to tap into the perspective of the employee-- OfficeMax understands what you go through on a daily basis.

Here is another way OfficeMax works to use designers to create an appealing workplace, bringing design and nature into the prison-like gray workspace. If you click on OfficeMax's website now, it simply says "Work with us", a clever line after it was able to differentiate itself from the office supply industry. Another way OfficeMax was able to do this was by connecting itself to Fashion Week. Surprisingly enough, this attempt proved to be successful. OfficeMax staged a chic work lounge during Fashion Week, bringing a desired working space for the people to lounge and take care of business. People would go to the "office" to relax, while getting some work done! By linking its company to another industry that people would not have otherwise thought would go together, OfficeMax was able to stand out and lure future clients.

Clever. Check out an interview with Bob Thacker, the Senior VP of Marketing and Advertising for OfficeMax during the time of this campaign

Do we really need all this stuff?

Back when the term "pack-rat" only referred to a person hoarding physical items, resulting in ugly (un)organized clutter.

 Daily practices have been redefined through the use of technology. Common definitions have been redefined through our use of technology.

 An article in the New York Times talked parents taking a new approach in dealing with clutter. Physical clutter. Parents were no longer wanting to keep their children's artwork. One mother in particular noted that she would scan her children's images into a file on her computer and then go through them later with her child in the future. Still maintaining traditional ways of keeping memories.

So rather than keeping physical clutter, parents have learned to transfer tangible products into a virtual storage space, otherwise known as an external hard drive, usb drive, compact discs, and etc. I have a fairly new desktop, and I've utilized my computer's memory comfortably, without worrying about memory. My computer is about 500 GB, and popular external hard drives often provide 2 TB of memory. The idea is that my computer can be stored in that external drive about four times. Who needs that much memory?

And although many of us do not use the services provided by Public Storage and may have a clean garage space (with minimal clutter), when it comes to taking up virtual space, the idea is as pleasant as keeping a dying pen lying around my desk-- just in case . Should I keep my old high school European History notes? Why not, it may come in handy someday.

By no means am I worried about a virtual landfill. That would be ridiculous. But to create such products to cater (after creating needs) to a market who (for the majority) probably does not need such an exorbitant amount of memory, is definitely something I wanted to address.

Check out this video on Dropbox, which is where I got my Public Storage idea: people are encouraged to pay up to $20.00 a month to keep their files in a virtual safe space.