Art410: Post #17

In response to The Eiffel Tower by Roland Barthes...

I think this article was one of the most interesting articles we had to read during the semester, it made me think from a different perspective on the way people view monuments. Instead of seeing, for example, the Golden Gate as something phenomenal, I imagined having to cross it every morning during rush hour. The bridge would most definitely lose some of its credibility for me in that circumstance, I would begin associating it with hours of traffic and high costs for crossing it. I was also intrigued when I read that "theres nothing to see in the tower, its empty, yet it still stirs up a crowd every year (p. 5-6)." How can something be so incredibly popular among the world, yet be completely useless? Sure the tower must have a beautiful view of Paris, must look amazing when lit up at night, and just simply gigantic but is this why people care about it so much? People must have an emotional attachment with the tower or associate it with something of great honor for Italy. Maybe what makes a monument or memorial long lasting is creating a significant presence that people can connect with, even if the monument/memorial is useless in reality.

Art410: Post #12

In response to Culture Jamming: Hacking, Slashing and Sniping in the Empire of Signs by Mark Dery...

After reading the article I couldn't stop thinking of all the advertisement that surrounds us on an everyday basis like on a bus or even on here. There's actually an option on here that I remember coming across where it asked me if I'd like to have advertisement placed around my blog for money (depending on how many clicks the ads get by people who visit my blog or something of that sort). Anyways, I really enjoyed this article. I found it interesting how Michael Deaver (former Reagan advisor) said "[the Reagan campaign staff] tried to create the most entertaining, visually attractive scene to fill that box, so that the cameras from the networks would have to use it." Similar to pretty much every reality show (or any show actually) by the way they attract viewers today. By ending the show on a cliffhanger and then showing the previews for next week's episode, editors for the program edit the preview with only the most ridiculous/hilarious/scandalous thing that happens on the episode. This way not only will they keep the grasp on the original viewers, but will venture out and hopefully grab hold of new viewers as well.

I still don’t understand media hoaxing, I don’t know how people can buy into such ludicrous stories. For example, in the article where it said “that hormones extracted from mutant cockroaches could cure arthritis, acne, and nuclear radiation sickness.” How could anyone believe that news broadcast? I find it hilarious, but at the same time it worries me that the public can be that gullible.

One last thing, can semiotics still be effective through audio? I thought semiotics was only a visual/physical thing, but after reading the article it seems as if it could still be used in audio snippets. Well, I guess the McDonald's musical tone of "bah bah bah bah bah" I'm loving it, could be an example of semiotics right?