Overall, I liked this class and I thought I have learned a lot. I did not know much about analysing pictures and moving images before this class. I thought this class taught me that vary well and I do not know if I will look at a movie the same way without at least thinking that it could be analysed. The assignment I liked the most in the class was the movie clip analysis.
I liked the movie clip analysis the most because it was kind of fun to do. If a person has to do work, I think that that person will be able to get much more work done if it is something he/she is interested in. What I am trying to say is that we were able to pick a movie or clip that we liked and than we wrote about it. It was like this for many assignments (which I liked), but it stuck out most in this one because I loved the movie that I choose to analysis. I also believe that this class had a lot of interesting discussions.
The class did a lot of teacher-students discussions. I enjoyed a lot of these because some of the topics brought up were interesting. Also, some of these topics were fun to talk about in class and it was interesting to see what the teacher and the other students talked about. All in all, I thought this was a fun and interesting class where I learned a lot and had some fun doing it.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Superheroes
One of the most interesting topics of last class period was superheroes. The presentation showed the audience the differences in superheroes and why people look up to them. I believe there are multiple types of superheroes. The first kind is of the fantasy variety.
In today's world, there are all sorts of cartoons and comics about superheroes. These heroes are imaginary, but they still are entertaining. Some people see these kind of heroes as giving their children false hope. There is no way their child will be able to fly in the future. Others see them as the exact opposite. That is, they see them as hope in a world that has a lot of evil in it. This is some of the impact of "fantasy" heroes on world. The next kind of hero that will be talked about is the celebrity hero.
There are many popular people seen as heroes. Many sport athletes fall under this category. A football player scoring the winning touchdown at the Superbowl could be seen as a hero by many. Other heroes that are popular are actors and actresses. People look up to what they do and even mimic them in many situations. So one can see how celebrities can be classified under heroes. One final category that is considered a hero are the common people.
Sometimes, the common people are seen as superheroes. They could do something outstanding and a lot of people will look up to them for it. The main thing that classifies a common person as a hero is if they save a life or multiple lives. A fireman saving a child in a burning house is most certainly classified as a hero. Army forces defending our country can be seen as heroes also. The main point of this blog was to show that there are a variety of heroes in our world. The main thing is that a hero is defined according to perspective. That is, a person defines what he/she sees as a hero. So no matter who you are in life, there is a good chance that you will have some sort of hero.
In today's world, there are all sorts of cartoons and comics about superheroes. These heroes are imaginary, but they still are entertaining. Some people see these kind of heroes as giving their children false hope. There is no way their child will be able to fly in the future. Others see them as the exact opposite. That is, they see them as hope in a world that has a lot of evil in it. This is some of the impact of "fantasy" heroes on world. The next kind of hero that will be talked about is the celebrity hero.
There are many popular people seen as heroes. Many sport athletes fall under this category. A football player scoring the winning touchdown at the Superbowl could be seen as a hero by many. Other heroes that are popular are actors and actresses. People look up to what they do and even mimic them in many situations. So one can see how celebrities can be classified under heroes. One final category that is considered a hero are the common people.
Sometimes, the common people are seen as superheroes. They could do something outstanding and a lot of people will look up to them for it. The main thing that classifies a common person as a hero is if they save a life or multiple lives. A fireman saving a child in a burning house is most certainly classified as a hero. Army forces defending our country can be seen as heroes also. The main point of this blog was to show that there are a variety of heroes in our world. The main thing is that a hero is defined according to perspective. That is, a person defines what he/she sees as a hero. So no matter who you are in life, there is a good chance that you will have some sort of hero.
Monday, April 23, 2007
In Response to Media's Revealing Coverage of Women.
In a presentation last week, Clay Cloutier discussed a topic that caught my eye. He told the class about how companies used half naked women to sell their products. Then Clay went on to talk about how all these commercials can be degrading and can set a scale for how a woman is suppose to look.
I tend to agree with Clay on these points. Women have such high expectations in today's world. All the revealing commercials send out the wrong message. It makes women fell that they have to be a certain height or weight to be excepted in this world. This can also lead to depression or other illnesses if a woman can not reach these "required" goals. I have heard of many cases of women dieting and even forming eating disorders because they want to lower their waist size. It is one thing to lose some weight, but it is another to wither a way to a shadow because of how some girl looks on television. It seems like common girls look at these beautiful, thin women and believe they have to be like that in order to get a husband someday. They have raise the expectation level too high which has had bad consequences. Many people believe that something should be done about the half naked women that are a daily part of the world's life.
People believe that there should be ads that show the world "ordinary women." That is why we saw those Dove commercials in class. They have advertisements that show how unrealistic these half naked women are and they also have commercials that support the average women. These commercials will let women know that they do not absolutely "need" a certain weight and height. These kinds of commercials could change the world as we know it. If more of these come out, it will slowly start taking over the half naked women commercials. This could result with less eating disorders and even less depression. These commercials are a step in the right direction. It should be interesting to see what will happen in the future.
I tend to agree with Clay on these points. Women have such high expectations in today's world. All the revealing commercials send out the wrong message. It makes women fell that they have to be a certain height or weight to be excepted in this world. This can also lead to depression or other illnesses if a woman can not reach these "required" goals. I have heard of many cases of women dieting and even forming eating disorders because they want to lower their waist size. It is one thing to lose some weight, but it is another to wither a way to a shadow because of how some girl looks on television. It seems like common girls look at these beautiful, thin women and believe they have to be like that in order to get a husband someday. They have raise the expectation level too high which has had bad consequences. Many people believe that something should be done about the half naked women that are a daily part of the world's life.
People believe that there should be ads that show the world "ordinary women." That is why we saw those Dove commercials in class. They have advertisements that show how unrealistic these half naked women are and they also have commercials that support the average women. These commercials will let women know that they do not absolutely "need" a certain weight and height. These kinds of commercials could change the world as we know it. If more of these come out, it will slowly start taking over the half naked women commercials. This could result with less eating disorders and even less depression. These commercials are a step in the right direction. It should be interesting to see what will happen in the future.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
presentation responses!
The speakers were all pretty good for the first day of presentations. They all seemed to have something good in mind to talk about for their projects. They seem to be on the right path and their presentations were pretty good. The one that was the most interesting was the peer-to-peer file sharing.
In this presentation, the student talked about the positives and negatives of sharing music. It is really interesting to me because I like music and I have file shared before. Her points were strong and she seemed to back them up with some good evidence. She talked about Napster, which caught my attention because I remember a lot about Napster. Then she introduced a company known as the RIAA which intrigued me because I have never heard of such an organization. She went on to explain that they were the people trying to get rid of all the file sharing programs and they wanted the music industry to be back like it used to be. This meant that a person would have to go by the CD at a store or not have any music at all. She also explained that the RIAA was the organization suing all these file sharing programs and they are the reason why many are going out of business. All in all, I liked every presentation, but this one stuck out the most for me because it is a big part in daily life today.
In this presentation, the student talked about the positives and negatives of sharing music. It is really interesting to me because I like music and I have file shared before. Her points were strong and she seemed to back them up with some good evidence. She talked about Napster, which caught my attention because I remember a lot about Napster. Then she introduced a company known as the RIAA which intrigued me because I have never heard of such an organization. She went on to explain that they were the people trying to get rid of all the file sharing programs and they wanted the music industry to be back like it used to be. This meant that a person would have to go by the CD at a store or not have any music at all. She also explained that the RIAA was the organization suing all these file sharing programs and they are the reason why many are going out of business. All in all, I liked every presentation, but this one stuck out the most for me because it is a big part in daily life today.
Monday, April 16, 2007
wikipedia - Good or Bad Source?
Wikipedia is seen as both a good and a bad source. It can be a good source when there is reliable data that supports their claims. If someone posts something and his statement is supported by an expert in the thing he is arguing, there is a good chance that it would be a reliable source. Another thing that Wikipedia can be a good source of is "common knowledge." They have definitions and other things that most people will know. If, by chance, a person does not know for some reason, they could look it up on Wikipedia and it would probably be reliable data. Wikipedia has some good points, but it can also be seen as a bad source.
Wikipedia allows anyone to post anything on their website. This can cause problems when dealing with credible sources. It is easy to say that something is true, but it can be hard to actually prove it is true. That is what makes Wikipedia a "bad" source. It is because they can have random people saying random things. These "things" may or may not be true. The only way a person knows it is a credible source is if the person sites other credible sources in his paper. If someone is bias, they can write a completely false paper on Wikipedia. This is why Wikipedia can be bad and why college students probably should not be allowed to use it for their papers.
In the end, I believe that Wikipedia does provide some good things, but it mainly a unreliable source. It can help point a person in the right direction, but with all the bias people and people who just "think they are right," it is hard to be called a reliable source. There is not enough evidence in most papers to prove that the information provided can be trusted.
Wikipedia allows anyone to post anything on their website. This can cause problems when dealing with credible sources. It is easy to say that something is true, but it can be hard to actually prove it is true. That is what makes Wikipedia a "bad" source. It is because they can have random people saying random things. These "things" may or may not be true. The only way a person knows it is a credible source is if the person sites other credible sources in his paper. If someone is bias, they can write a completely false paper on Wikipedia. This is why Wikipedia can be bad and why college students probably should not be allowed to use it for their papers.
In the end, I believe that Wikipedia does provide some good things, but it mainly a unreliable source. It can help point a person in the right direction, but with all the bias people and people who just "think they are right," it is hard to be called a reliable source. There is not enough evidence in most papers to prove that the information provided can be trusted.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
IS MULTITASKING MORE EFFICIENT? SHIFTING MENTAL GEARS COSTS TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN SHIFTING TO LESS FAMILIAR TASKS!
http://www.apa.org/releases/multitasking.html This is an article that I found on Google off the Internet. It explains how multitasking works in the brain and how efficient it can be. In my project, I can use this for the "older generation" argument and then try to refute it which would make my argument much better. I also can throw in some scientific information about how multitasking works in the brain to give the audience an idea of what your body goes through when a person multitasks. This multitasking article seems to be a pretty reliable source.
The source was found off a Google website, but there seems to be some professional experts who produced the information for this article. The article is a ".org" which already hints that it is a more suitable source then say a ".com". The article also seems to come from a special organization of scientists who have run experiments and tested some results. The scientists seem to be psychologists and the article even states that the "APA" is pretty highly used organization that provides scientific research. it states:
"The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 155,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 53 divisions of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare."
This is very helpful support in judging if the article is reliable. If only a few scientists were apart of this organization or none at all, the article would not be nearly as reliable. Another point that helps support that the article has good information is the date it was put out.
The article was made on August 5, 2001, which is fairly recent. The article is only six years old which probably makes it still reliable. The information might be starting to get old and other ideas could have been proven by now, but it still pretty new and has a good possibility of being the same thing argued today. The older an article is, the less reliable it is. Data and ideas change throughout the years. People believe one thing at one point of time and something completely different five years later. It all depends on the knowledge people receive and how it is used to prove something. If an idea is not proven, it can not be a "true" idea. It is still a theory that could be completely wrong. either which way, the more new an article is, the better chance it is of being a reliable source.
All in all, I believe this source is pretty reliable. It does not help my paper to much, but it post strong points which are supported by professionals. The facts help my paper, but the downsides of multitasking hurts my paper. The opposing side could help my paper, though, if I can find some data that can oppose their views.
The source was found off a Google website, but there seems to be some professional experts who produced the information for this article. The article is a ".org" which already hints that it is a more suitable source then say a ".com". The article also seems to come from a special organization of scientists who have run experiments and tested some results. The scientists seem to be psychologists and the article even states that the "APA" is pretty highly used organization that provides scientific research. it states:
"The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 155,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 53 divisions of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare."
This is very helpful support in judging if the article is reliable. If only a few scientists were apart of this organization or none at all, the article would not be nearly as reliable. Another point that helps support that the article has good information is the date it was put out.
The article was made on August 5, 2001, which is fairly recent. The article is only six years old which probably makes it still reliable. The information might be starting to get old and other ideas could have been proven by now, but it still pretty new and has a good possibility of being the same thing argued today. The older an article is, the less reliable it is. Data and ideas change throughout the years. People believe one thing at one point of time and something completely different five years later. It all depends on the knowledge people receive and how it is used to prove something. If an idea is not proven, it can not be a "true" idea. It is still a theory that could be completely wrong. either which way, the more new an article is, the better chance it is of being a reliable source.
All in all, I believe this source is pretty reliable. It does not help my paper to much, but it post strong points which are supported by professionals. The facts help my paper, but the downsides of multitasking hurts my paper. The opposing side could help my paper, though, if I can find some data that can oppose their views.
Monday, April 9, 2007
idiocracy
The theme of idiocracy was rather interesting to me. I never thought of "humanity becoming stupider" as the movie clearly points out. The people of my generation do watch a lot of movies that revolve around people doing dumb things. He makes interesting points like the "dumber" people reproducing more than the "smarter" people because they forget to use birth control and such. The society gets to the point that the average IQ is really low and that a regular person today is a genius in the future. I believe Mike Judge is posing a strong and intriguing point, but there are some flaws. For one, there are still plenty of smart people who reproduce just fine. Another example is that some smart people watch "dumb" movies to broaden their horizons. One final reason is that people just find it entertaining. Movies do not affect the human society as much as the movie suggests. Lots of smart people watch movies like this for their personal entertainment. These people act nothing like the people on the film though. They still are smart and still talk in a highly intellectual way. All in all, I think that Mike Judge makes some very interesting claims. They are fun to think about and his movie was very entertaining. I liked his ideas, but most of them do not seem plausible to me. I just can not see the human race getting that dumb. There will always be smart people on this earth, even if they think "dumber" things are entertaining.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Would it be a good thing if you could view just the good parts?!
Seeing only the good parts of a text can be a good and bad thing. In a certain sporting events, it can be a good thing. If a person is not particularly interested in a sport, but he/she still likes seeing the points scored during the game, that person can watch the highlight reels. This will save that person time and he will get to see what he/she wants to. A way that seeing only the good parts can be bad though is a person watching a sporting event that they are really interested in.
If one is really intrigued by a sport, that person should want to see every little play. They should know all the terms and all of the penalties. If they see all the plays, they can distinguish great plays, from amazing plays. They are not actually watching there sport if they just look at the good parts. Movies have a similar approach in the way that seeing only the good parts can be good and bad.
Seeing only the good parts in movies a person is not particularly interested in could be a good thing. If they think the movie was OK, but it had unnecessary scenes and that it was too long, seeing only the good parts can be a really good thing. Although there are some good points, there can be a lot more bad points seen in only watching the good parts in a movie.
If people start only watching the good parts, they will eventually forget what the bad parts were like. If a person only sees the good parts of movies, how can they compare it to the bad parts. A person can not compare something like this if there is no bad parts to compare. So seeing the bad parts of movies make the good parts even better because a person can compare the two and realize how much better a particular scene is then another. Also, in this same kind of topic, a person could then choose their favorite movie better. If people only see the good things in movies, a lot of movies would be similar and it would be hard to choose a favorite. With seeing everything in a movie, a person can easily tell which movies are bad, and which movies are good. This should limit there choice of their favorite movie and also make that movie even better. A person will know how hard another person has worked on that film, since it is so good. That same person will know how poorly someone worked on a bad movie. All in all, movies are better when a person can see the whole thing rather than just the good parts.
If one is really intrigued by a sport, that person should want to see every little play. They should know all the terms and all of the penalties. If they see all the plays, they can distinguish great plays, from amazing plays. They are not actually watching there sport if they just look at the good parts. Movies have a similar approach in the way that seeing only the good parts can be good and bad.
Seeing only the good parts in movies a person is not particularly interested in could be a good thing. If they think the movie was OK, but it had unnecessary scenes and that it was too long, seeing only the good parts can be a really good thing. Although there are some good points, there can be a lot more bad points seen in only watching the good parts in a movie.
If people start only watching the good parts, they will eventually forget what the bad parts were like. If a person only sees the good parts of movies, how can they compare it to the bad parts. A person can not compare something like this if there is no bad parts to compare. So seeing the bad parts of movies make the good parts even better because a person can compare the two and realize how much better a particular scene is then another. Also, in this same kind of topic, a person could then choose their favorite movie better. If people only see the good things in movies, a lot of movies would be similar and it would be hard to choose a favorite. With seeing everything in a movie, a person can easily tell which movies are bad, and which movies are good. This should limit there choice of their favorite movie and also make that movie even better. A person will know how hard another person has worked on that film, since it is so good. That same person will know how poorly someone worked on a bad movie. All in all, movies are better when a person can see the whole thing rather than just the good parts.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Visual Culture and Audience.
Multitasking is a big part of the new generations. It was not such a giant success in the previous generation though. They criticize children and people of the younger generation for doing several tasks at once. Their argument is that younger generations can not completely focus on one task. Therefore, they can not produce an efficient outcome of any one task. The younger generation has it's own argument though.
Younger generations argue that we are just adapting to a fast past environment and learning how to do many tasks efficiently at once. Since I am part of the younger generation, I share this view that humans adapt and become more efficient. The more time goes by, the smarter the children get and the more abilities they possess. Younger children will eventually be able to multitask and do several things more efficiently then the older generation could do with one specific thing. This is why things keep improving and more stuff is invented. People are getting smarter and are adapting. All in all, Multitasking is a concept that will just get better and better as generations go on.
Visual Culture can affect an audiences views towards one another and their view of themselves. Some women are a very good example of this. They see attractive women on TV and in movies and they compare themselves and others to them. They may say that if they are not wearing some sort of clothing, they are not going to be hot. This affects how women dress. Visual Culture can do something like this for guys though too. Guys will see other "buff" guys on TV or in a movie and want to be like them. They will see that they get the girls because of how strong they are. As a result, a lot of guys exercise and work out to try to get there bodies like the ones they see in a Visual Culture. These are just some of the basic claims made for both genders. They are some that specify certain areas of a person's personality, but those will be discussed on a later date. Right now, the goal was to show people that Visual Culture affects all sorts of people. Young and old, male or female, black or white, etc. Visual Media affects all these various audiences.
Younger generations argue that we are just adapting to a fast past environment and learning how to do many tasks efficiently at once. Since I am part of the younger generation, I share this view that humans adapt and become more efficient. The more time goes by, the smarter the children get and the more abilities they possess. Younger children will eventually be able to multitask and do several things more efficiently then the older generation could do with one specific thing. This is why things keep improving and more stuff is invented. People are getting smarter and are adapting. All in all, Multitasking is a concept that will just get better and better as generations go on.
Visual Culture can affect an audiences views towards one another and their view of themselves. Some women are a very good example of this. They see attractive women on TV and in movies and they compare themselves and others to them. They may say that if they are not wearing some sort of clothing, they are not going to be hot. This affects how women dress. Visual Culture can do something like this for guys though too. Guys will see other "buff" guys on TV or in a movie and want to be like them. They will see that they get the girls because of how strong they are. As a result, a lot of guys exercise and work out to try to get there bodies like the ones they see in a Visual Culture. These are just some of the basic claims made for both genders. They are some that specify certain areas of a person's personality, but those will be discussed on a later date. Right now, the goal was to show people that Visual Culture affects all sorts of people. Young and old, male or female, black or white, etc. Visual Media affects all these various audiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)