Questions for Week 10

1. In his article, Parry-Giles says that "Politics in the postmodern media age is a struggle over images. That struggle forms political reality, as the media mediates the "cultural norms of the postmodern age." According to Baty, "mass-mediated rememberances [act] as the common grounds of political cultural residence." Yet when we consume these televisual images, which Stephens depicts as "a magic that may come to dwarf... other forms of communication" we are invited, via the medium itself, to forget their mediated form." I think that this is an interesting concept and especially relevant with the last election. Tina Fey's representation of Sarah Palin are images that many associated with the Republican ticket in November. How did these images from the media mediate cultural norms during the election? How did Fey's impersonations dwarf other forms of communication in the election?

2. Rose's article "Researching Visual Materials" makes the distinction between vision and visuality. She defines visuality as "the way in which vision is connected in various ways: 'how we see, how we are able, allowed, or made to see, and how we see this seeing and the unseeing therin.'" Rose addresses the effects that tv, advertisments, newpapers and other forms of media and how they offer views on the world. How do we make these connections between vision and visuality initially? How do we construct our visuality? How do these forms of media connect our vision to out visuality?

3. "It is often suggested - or assumed - that in premodern societies, visual images were no especially important, partly because there were so few of them in circulation. This began to change with the onset of modernity. In particular, it is suggested that modern forms of understanding the world depend on a scopic regime that equates seeing with knowledge... 'looking, seeing and knowing have become perilously intertwined' so that 'the modern' world is very much a "seen" phenomena." At what point did looking, seeing and knowing become so intertwined? Is it possible to separate the three? How exactly did the modern world become such a seen phenomena? Why is it that people are always needing some sort of visual stimulation?

Questions for Week 9

1. In "Reflecting on Marshall McLuhan" the author discussed media and technologies and how they extend and amputate our sensory perceptions. "'The wheel,' for example, 'is an extension of the foot': 'the book is an extension of the eye': 'clothing is an extension of the skin': and 'electric circuitry is an extension of the central nervous system.' Moreover, whenever one of these senses is extended, others experience amputation. If we extend the eye, for instance, we may at the same time amputate the ear." What do you think McLuhan would say that the Internet and other modern technologies are extensions of? What sensory perceptions are extended and what are amputated by the Internet?

2. McLuhan asserts that "the whole nervous system of man has undergone a radical change. In breaking the hold that the Gutenberg galaxy had on man for more than four centuries, 'electric circuitry has overthrown the the regime of 'time' and 'space' and pours upon us instantly and continuously the concerns of all other men. It has reconstituted dialogue on a global scale." He discussed the evolution of language and communication over time. Seeing how far we have come and thinking about where we are headed reminded me of the Disney movie, Wall-E. It takes place in the future where humans have become so dependent upon technology that they no longer interact with one another, they live in chairs with screens attached to them that allow them to talk to others and order food. These chairs drive them everywhere and they don't have to do anything for themselves because machines and robots do everything. Is this where we are headed now? What is next? The Internet and other technological advances have already eliminated much of day to day human interaction. Where would McLuhan say we are headed now? Are we to end up completely amputated from our sensory perceptions by technology?

3. Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" discusses society's necessity to be constantly entertained. "Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice. The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death." He goes on to say that "Indeed, in America God favors all those who possess both a talent and a format to amuse, whether they be preachers, athletes, entrepreneurs, politicians, teachers or journalists." Shows like the Colbert Report and The Daily Show with John Stuart draw viewers in with their humorous approach to the news. And yes, it's entertaining but it is unfortunate when people use shows like that as their single source of news. It's great that people watch them and get at least somewhat informed but what can we do to change the way that this country operates, as only wanting to engage in something as long as it's entertaining? How can we call upon the citizens of this nation to look past appearances and what is entertaining to focus on what is truly important and become more media literate?

Response to Alyssa's Post

In Chapter 13, Hauser explains that structures are basic to perception. The realities that we form about life are constructed by our perceptions. Therefore, what we see as reality is in fact not all true. Hauser states “The brain does not record exact images of the external world like a camera does (247).” I think this statement presents well the image that what we see to be reality is just our perception of it. Hauser then goes on to explain that “our perception of reality requires structure (247).” These structures are formed by our brains when we try to make out reality. All that we experience also obtains some sort of structure. We can’t make sense of our experiences without the familiarity of structure. Hauser’s ideas on perception are easy to grasp, however his idea on structure is more confusing. Do these structures that we use to frame our experiences and perceptions come from what we learn and experience? Or is structure something that is taught to by our parents from what they have experienced? Therefore, I am curious about where structure is obtained from?



I think that Hauser's statement "The brain does not record exact images of the external world like a camera does," is really interesting and something that I would like to discuss. I have heard, and I can't remember where, but the point is that I have heard that when the pilgrims first came to North America, the Native Americans literally did not even see the ships that they came across the sea on because it was so unlike anything that they had ever seen that it was beyond their perception. They had never experienced or seen anything like that before so they could not comprehend what it was they were seeing. There was nothing that they had to frame that experience with so they couldn't even see it. An example that is more relatable to today would be September 11th. No one had an experience of seeing planes crashing into buildings. I would argue that if there weren't pictures of it actually happening, it would be so much more difficult to talk about, people wouldn't believe what happened if there weren't pictures of it because it is beyond comprehension prior to that day.
I think that the structures that we use to frame our experiences and perceptions come from a variety of places. However, I think that the majority of the structures do come from our parents. Before we were old enough to interpret our own experiences or perceptions, our parents did it for us. They were the means by which we perceived the world. Even now, things that I experience and perceive are still somewhat framed by what my parents believe. I have a great amount of respect for them and what they think. The values that they instilled in me when I was a kid still resonate with me today. I think that other influential people in our lives also serve as frames. Also other experiences and perceptions shape future experiences and perceptions, as I touched on in my last blog.