Month: December 2015

Class Journal – Day Three

 

Entry #3—Maritime Museum

I have just finished the second season of a television show called Black Sails, which is about pirates during the 1600s and is a prequel to Treasure Island. The characters and setting are directly from history. So naturally, I was excited to visit the Maritime Museum, and again, I really wished we had more time to explore. I didn’t find much information about the pirates! However, as I walked around the museum, I began to think about the show and compare it to the exhibits. The show is presented from the point of view of the pirates, and the advertising for the show presents the characters as the “heroes” of the narrative. However, the exhibits I was viewing (along with the advertising for the exhibits that I looked up online) presented the mariners from England as “heroes.” These two groups of people were at war with one another at sea, and yet, in modern day, there are two very different perspectives and ideas of the history presented in advertising.

In relation to our book, I thought about how the creative class is identified as “cultural intermediaries.” They are both “producers and shapers” of culture, and influence the ways that audiences interpret information. With the show I watch, for example, the pirates are presented as sympathy and the heroes of the history, while the mariners from England are seen as “stuck-up” and oppressive. In the Maritime Museum, however, I had a different impression of the same history. The facts of history may or may not be consistent between the narratives, but each product spins the facts differently. In advertising, we have the ability to do the exact same thing. Pricing, for example, can be manipulated in just a few words to seem more of a discount than it really is. I wonder how the creative class has shaped history, and in what ways history varies by country and how that country’s creative class influenced that perception of history.

I also believe the creatives “cultural identities” come into play as well (pg. 68). The television show is created in the United States and I assume created by Americans. Americans are writing the script and creating the advertisements for the narrative, therefore “shaping” how Americans perceive the story of England’s maritime history. Meanwhile, in England, the narrative is quite different. The cultural intermediaries present the same information in different ways, perhaps influenced by their cultural identities, their heritage, and their own understanding or connection (personal or otherwise) to history. I believe this played a major role both in the creation of both products (the show and the exhibit) and in their subsequent advertising/promotions.

Class Journal – Day Two

Entry #3—Tate Modern Exhibit

I’m not really a fan of modern art, but there was one room in the Tate Modern that stuck with me. In the World Goes Pop Exhibit, there was a room that was painted with pink silhouettes of women with mirrors covering between their legs. I found it absolutely fascinating. In the book, there is a discussion of how fashion “provides pleasure, but also significant economic and personal pressures” (pg. 92). Advertising has started to use “increasing generalization[s] in terms of female representation and identity” (pg 92). One of the issues I have while studying culture and strategic messaging is the representation of women in advertising and the ideologies that are spread by these representations.

Fashion advertising in particular presents beautiful women that are as much objects as the items that they are promoting. The room in the Tate Modern seemed, to me, to be rebelling against these ideas. The mirrors required the viewer to look at themselves instead of womanhood. The description of the room described how the art sabotages “any attempted voyeurism.” Depictions of women in advertising appear to me to be idealized and fantasies for both women and men, providing “glimpses” into our desires or aspirations. This exhibit forced the viewer to reflect on themselves and their own identity, rather than objectifying a woman, which I believe is a common reading of fashion advertisements. It was awesome.

Entry #4—Transport Museum

I thought the Transport Museum was one of the coolest museums that we have visited yet. I loved seeing the full scale models. One of the advertising aspects that I thought was particularly interesting was the advertisements that were painted on the sides of the horse drawn carriages. However, what really caught my eye was the older posters that advertised the railways. According to the sign next to the models of the railways, they reflected the classes of Victorian society. There was a clear separation between economic classes, and I found this represented in dozens of the posters that were throughout the museum.

From the early days of the railway station to the 1940s, the advertisements suggested a high class and elite passenger for the transportation system. The railways made it easier to access the theatre district, for example, which perhaps led to the images in the posters. However, I think the posters show a distinct target audience, and it’s not the lower class.

The tube was advertised as “upper class” and for high society (Culture). I believe that these messages were “economic bases which sanction[ed] oppression” (pg. 26). The reoccurring message was that the tube was elite, for those who were at the top. Therefore, the transportation system was promoted as inaccessible to those who were in the lower class, which may have prevented them from attending the theatre or participating in Culture. I believe that this is oppression. It prevents a group of people from believing they belong or are worthy of a certain thing on the basis of money. The advertisements further this oppression, and is something that as a content creator, I want to be conscious of. For example, what are the messages I am creating doing to groups of people outside of my target audience? In what ways am I, as an advertiser, contributing to the oppression of certain peoples?

Class Journal – Day One

Entry #3 – Bus Tour

Since I’ve been in London before, many of the sites that we stopped at on the tour I had been to already.  However, I learned many interesting facts about the city and certain neighborhoods, and our tour guide was great. One thing that I thought was interesting was the way that our tour guide referred to the Royal Family. On my last trip to London, I noticed the same thing: local Brits don’t seem to be too enthused with the Royal Family. Perhaps it’s just their humor, but I’ve often heard jokes made about the Royal Family and locals do not seem to be charmed or enchanted by the Royal Families in the same way that Americans are.

In the United States, there seems to be a fascination with the Royal Family. I haven’t checked British tabloids (and maybe I should), but just before I left for London, I saw several tabloids featuring the Royal Family. In one of the gift shops we stopped at, my classmate purchased a book about Princess Diana for her mother. She said that her mother “loves” Princess Diana and is fascinated by her life. This contrast in perception reminded me of the section in our textbook about Selling Nations.

It seems to me that in America, we have an understanding of the Royal Family: they are wealthy, glamorous, beautiful, polite, and classy. There are no kings, queens, princes and princesses in the United States, so I think curiosity plays a factor in Americans’ obsession.  It’s different. It’s exciting. It’s inaccessible to us (across the pond). Meanwhile, it probably seems rather ordinary and perhaps even silly to British locals. In our textbook, there is a discussion of “soft power” methods, which are used to manipulate “culture, ideology, and public opinion” (pg. 176).

I believe that the portrayal of the Royal Family in America may be “soft power” methods at work. Americans idealize the Royal Family and therefore connect it to England as a whole, which may improve international relations between the United States and England. To me, this became more apparent when talking to locals in London and comparing their reactions to the Royal Family to those I’ve heard in America.

Edit: My friend just shared a video from the Queen with the following comment: “This is so beautiful. I know Christmas has now passed, but it’s never a bad time to listen to Her Majesty. Particularly for any of my Facebook friends of faith: She has some lovely things to say & remind us of.”

Entry #4 – Museum of London

I really enjoyed the Museum of London. I wished we had more time there! I thought the Cauldron exhibit was fascinating, especially since I had not seen the 2012 Olympics and didn’t know what to expect. Once again, I found myself thinking about the Selling Nation section. One of the quotes on the wall was “A ceremony that celebrates the creativity, eccentricity, daring and openness of the British Games.”

Yeah, right.

As soon as I read that quote I recognized it for what it was: a PR move. The quote was by Danny Boyle, the Artistic Director, and I believe what the quote really means is that the ceremony was to celebrate, and let the world know, that London and England are creative, eccentric, daring, and open. I believe this is another example of “soft power” methods and that the opening ceremony was an opportunity for England to “sell [their] nation to the rest of the world” (pg.176).  By giving away petals of the Cauldron, England presented itself as welcoming, peaceful, and generous. I’m sure it rang with other countries—it certainly seems to have resonated with London, as shown by the exhibit. However, I couldn’t help but wonder if the setup of the exhibit was, again, a moment of political advertising.

As soon as I walked into the exhibit, there was loud, triumphant music, and my eyes were drawn to the magnificent and giant cauldron stems. The walls are covered in heartfelt quotes and photos of the representatives in each country who received a stem. I do think the exhibit exemplified qualities that London and the British want to express, but I also felt that the exhibit was (like the cauldron itself) intended for foreigners and visitors. It is “selling” London and England as a good, peaceful, and even powerful (the stems were towering over visitors) city and nation.