Erica post 1

5 images

The budweiser frogs: About 8 years ago budweiser launched a whole slew of commercials featuring frogs, lizards and other happy-go-lucky swamp animals. Although it's not hard to see that these images contain little "real life" truths (frogs don't really croak out words), the message conveyed is that budweiser beer brings people together, helps them connect, makes them happy, etc. All the animals got along, sang in unison, etc. They use animals as a stand in for the people they think will consume their product. Although no one equates him or herself with a frog, it is not hard to see the appeal these advertisments have.

On the same note, coca-cola launched a similar, animal based ad campaign with its arctic/antarctic wonderlands. Polar bears, penguins and seals all made friends and looked out for each other with the help of an ice cold bottle of coca cola. They did so without talking and managed to look exceedingly cute while doing so. The truth being sold here is that, again, the product brings people (or animals) together. In the case of coca-cola, they brought animals from opposite poles an impossible occurence, together. They also showed different age groups enjoying the beverage, from cubs to mama bears. And, along with the age diversity, they should strong family groups, with baby animals and parents unititng over the chilled beverage. Coca-cola is trying to make itself the "every man's (woman's, child's)" drink by showing all these different animals and settings. It also tries to convey a sense of safety, health, love and family values.

Continuing with the animal theme, probably the most famous modern advertising mascot is the geico gecko. He beams down at us from billboards, through t.v. screens and even talks to us over the radio. He comes across as personable, goofy, open, happy and helpful. Geico is saying, "Look at our spokesperson/gecko, isn't he cute? wouldn't you want to buy insurance from him?" In fact there is little comment on the actual insurance itself in this image, merely on the approachable nature of the company itself. If people associate the lovable, amusing nature of the gecko with the company, then the image has worked. However, it does not seem to hold any objective truth about the value of the service/product being provided.

On a slightly different note, GM has recently come out with their "transformers" advertising campaign. The commercial opens with a scene from the recent movie and then shows the daring and strength of one of the GM vehicles. Clearly, they are saying that if you buy one of their cars you can save the world, single handedly, and then get the girl at the end. By equating their vehicles with robotic superheroes, GM is trying to show the toughness, ruggedness, manlyness and true american character of their vehicles. While they are not trying to say their cars can actually transform (and hopefully no one would believe they would) they are showing some heroic qualities. They want the audience to think their vehicles are safe, can do more than others and are built to higher standards than other vehicles.

And, for my last image, i will entirely shift gears and examine the Viagra commercials. The first time i saw one of these i was 17 or 18 and was rather surprised that such commercials were allowed on daytime television. They are, and they actually are quite amusing. The viewer is presented with an unhappy man, who is withdrawn or having trouble at some sort of activity, or just doesnt seem to be enjoying life. Then, magically everything perks up and he's living the good life. He always has friends, a huge smile, a family, a cute wife, and is usually around 45. And, he's always reasonably attractive. And, it seems that his happiness, his attractiveness is directly tied to his sex drive. The viewer is shown that this man is only content when he's using viagra, and is only shown having meaningful interaction with others when this is true. The commercials also all have a classic, 1950's, leave it to beaver look to them. They all seem wholesome. While this look is, to some extent, sarcastic, it still gives the viewer the impression that viagra is perfectly normal and it's use is acceptable even in traditional settings.

part 1-2

The semiotics model in our reading analyzed signs by looking at what was used as the signifier, what was signified and how these combined to make up the sign.

In the case of the budweiser frogs, these happy (possibly drunken) animals are the signifier. The signified is that drinking will make you happy, friendly and united. So, the sign is that budweiser will make people content and amiable.

For the coca cola bears the signifier is the image of the polar bears all cavorting happily and drinkin soda.

The signified is that the drink is accesible, safe, family friendly and refreshing.

So, the sign is that coca cola will make everyone in the family happy and leave them all satisfied.

part 1-3

high art- AmericanIronbound, 1896 by Frederick Childe Hassam (1859-1935), (CFAM wall hanging) is an example of high art. It is an oil painting of a cliff and the ocean below it. This is classified as "high" art because it is a traditional art form: painting and because it is hung in a gallery. The subject matter is classical and the colors are realistic and the painting is very aesthetically pleasing.

low art- The "no fire" symbol on the sign on my balcony. The symbol is a representation of an object, it was designed and colored, at one point it was an artistic endeavor. However, it is used on signs and posters and is reproduced massively. It has no artist name accompanying it, and no sort of individuality or identity.

part 2

Mass media, in theory should give the populace access to a wide variety of information, views, and truths. However, in reality i doubt whether it can be said to do so much. Almost every news channel, whether it be Fox, or CNN seems to have a perceived political leaning. This means the information provided seems slightly tainted by the affiliations of the news station. THus, instead of giving a large amount of people the truth, these stations give their version of the truth and create in their viewers a bias that otherwise would not exist. Radio stations seem to have less of a political inclination, but they provide less information to the majority of the public. ALso, if the government has control over the content or regulations guiding television, this government basically has the power to submit the medium to it's will. The internet seems to provide the kind of unbridled, open channels of information that are needed, because everyone and anyone (like us) can provide information that the world can access. However, this is exactly the danger of the internet. If everyone can make up and post whatver he or she wants, then there is no way to tell if the information is true, substantiated, or useful. It almost becomes so democratic that it becomes unsubstantial. Sites like wikipedia, google, yahoo, etc that give the web user a myriad of responses and information regarding almost any query are hard to trust, and seem almost overwhelming. Somewhere between the absolute freedom of the internet, and the controlled nature of the networks there is a happy medium for mass media.