Archive for the ‘Talks’ Category

Oh, Baby.

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

There should be a law passed against the use of babies in an advertising context that aid to the deterioration of society, but that’s just an opinion. I have seen many ads that are just poor taste. Maybe a law is too far fetched but seriously, what are advertisers thinking!

The little miss coppertone ad (top) although it seems very sweet an innocent, it leads some groups in society to a pattern of “monkey see, monkey do.” This behavior gives way to beauty pageants which, sometimes, reinforce the idea that people should be valued primarily for their physical appearance. But how do you go from cute advertisements, to a suppressive behavior by people?

Who was to know that the cute Little Miss Coppertone ad could have potentially been a contributor to a person becoming Miss South Carolina in a contest like Miss Teen USA 2007.

Toddlers used in commercials also have mixed messages, put this ad of a baby holding a “safety razor” for instance.

Whatever the message Gillette is trying to convey; if a young child sees an ad with a baby playing with razor blades, looking like he’s having the time of his life. It is potentially harmful for those kids that do attempt to shave them selves, as a result of getting influenced by the imagery that the ad depicted.

These are examples of older advertising campaigns and although Gillette has moved on to better advertising, Coppertone has held on to their older imagery. The image of the little girl getting pulled on by the puppy is now an iconic image and the “monkey see, monkey do.” effect is proven by thousands of people replicating the iconic image.

Today the advertising world is full of baby imagery. Cute, innocent, defenseless babies. Babies that after birth are named after company names. Like GoldenPalaceDotCom Silverman whose parents got paid $15,000 to name the newborn the casino web site as a name. Where is society going with this?

It seems that advertisers and the corporations paying for the ads should have enough morals to realize that using babies as subjects is wrong. It may be insignificant in some cases but can be seriously damaging in others.

Lets take a current baby campaign like E*Trade’s talking baby. What is the point that E*Trade is trying to make? Is it that people should be capitalistic since birth? Or that we are all babies at heart? The reality of using babies in a campaign, is clearly just to get attention. Some may consider this use of this imagery exploitation of babies. Some may consider it a strategy.

Humans brains are wired to respond to the sight of a baby. It is almost impossible not to notice one if it is within our sight.

James Breeze from usableworld.com.au shows us research that support evidence that babies take priority in our attention. We are wired to be subconsciously influenced by the baby’s actions. Are the babies calling for help, are they afraid or interested by something? What is the baby doing? We don’t really think about these things when looking at an ad. Through video tracking of eye movement you can gather data showing what people are looking at.

The image below shows an ad of a baby looking at the viewer. As it can be seen, the majority of the time spent looking at the ad is scrutinizing the baby, while the content of the ad is barely acknowledged.

The next image is of a baby that is looking at the content of the advertisement. It is very clear that the subconscious effect is focalizing on the message and not just the baby. This effect of diverting the focus from the baby to the text is key for people who use babies as objects in advertising to get optimum results.

So why are companies like Sonic and McDonald’s used such imagery to advertise their brands? The logic is mind-boggling. Specially when the imagery depicted is reaching a creepy level.

Some ads use agitational imagery to get to an interesting point across but the fact that they are using disturbing imagery will have negative ripple effects that may not be identified until it is too late.

This is why some ads should be look at with a conscious mind and people should realize that some depictions are clearly out of line and could affect society in a negative way. When we start glamorizing the neglect of children, thats we know that advertising has gone too far.

These issues need to be looked at, specially since we have a new baby boom occurring right now. There is a record number of babies being born, and everyone is thinking about babies weather in a positive or negative way (Lets hope positive). If we don’t do anything about the regulation of imagery in advertising, we will definitely be seeing more side-effects due to the poor choices made by corporations. And the least that people should do, is to be aware of all these issues.

A Rant About Women by Clay Shirky?

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Wow

I guess I’m just trying to figure out why clay called me an “behave like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerk” All I wanted was a letter of recommendation. And then his next thought is clearly a con artist! Really! Me! And what does jail have to do with it? Is clay trying to gain a bad-ass persona, or does he just want to tell us that he likes to twist words to gain power?

With all jokes aside (me being a former student of clay’s and joking about he writing about my non existent recommendation) WTF! “women in general” what percentage is he talking about!? That’s kind of like saying that men in general don’t like to have sex, they just like orgasms! Talk about Polarization!

I truly disagree with Clay Shirky’s “A Rant About Women” maybe I owe my way of thinking to my mother, but Women should act as they do; like Women, like people! I think that penis and vagina is not an issue anymore. Its the culture and the all boys club way of thinking that’s the issue. In this world we need to form alliances with people to gain a bit more power, this is the general theory behind politics. The problem that women used to have and still do sometimes, is that there are many circumstance causing women to not pursue professional careers in specific fields (like engineering, programming and garbage collecting to name a few). Because of that, women that do get higher educations and choose to go into those careers with smaller female to male ratios, have a smaller chance of forming their own “all girls” club to gain power. But in this modern world is this really a good move? is having a little girls club or a little boys club a good thing? No. You cannot look at sex anymore unless you are crazy. I mean look at Richard Branson or Hilary Clinton for instance. Branson tends to get people together, regardless of sex, to work together for the better good (or profit) Good things happen when you get a mix of people engaging in dialogue. Hilary was close to getting the democratic the nomination in 2008 and that was not due to her “acting like a man”. The popularity she gained was due to her acting like her self and doing what she thought was best politically. We all know why Obama won, but Hilary is a good example when it comes to politics and power. I mean she went to Wellesley college! You don’t learn to “act like a man”, at an all girls school. You can argue that she would not have done it with out Bill’s help, so why did the Republican Party go with Palin?

The reason Shirky’s female students are not jerks (“women whose educations I am responsible for in particular, are often lousy at those kinds of behaviors, even when the situation calls for it.”) is most likely because he is of the opposite sex and people tend to be politically correct towards the opposite sex in environments like classrooms (well same sex and gender, age, etc. too, people in classrooms I like to think are well behaved). The possibility of a bad grade and offending a “good” professor are enough to keep anyone quiet, this is all an assumption though. Rivalries occur more frequently among people of the same sex because that gender gap is not present. The gender gap often represents either an obstacle or a lack of, depending on your point of view.

“asking women to behave more like men” is completely wrong. Women should behave like Women, gender has nothing with doing a job right (unless is like breast feeding or something?). If a female wants to be a football player, that’s awesome. If she wants to be a Ganitor that’s cool, but not really, but its cool! if she wants to be a chef or the president of the US that’s fine, we need more like that. If they mess up, big deal everyone messes up. Raising your hand to get attention and “risk public failure” has more to do with character and patience than knowledge and sex. As a matter of fact there is something more powerful than raising your hand, and that is talking with an assertive tone to address an answer or response. This happens very often now a days, and its good. You can definitely distinguish alpha males and females.

Bottom line is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and “forceful and self-confident without being arrogant or jerky” is not the only way to gain power. Its more often that those who don’t need to yell that have the most power. As for “women wait for someone else to recommend them.” Apparently Clay never heard of Women like Cornelia Sullfrank or Rachel Carson two of my row models.

I get that Clay is trying to encourage a conversation (in his mind) that will get women inspired to go on. But indications that you may be a perpetrator of the sexist ideology is not the right way. Maybe Clay did not realize that this point would have as easily been made, with a bit more “Umph” and a less degrading tone by other means. Rants always polarize people. So if the goal was to toss wood in the fire, then we will not go cold any time soon.

My wish is that people (Men/ Women) would deal with other people with grace and stern conduct if any lines are crossed. You will never beat fire with fire (Well maybe in a Savannah with steady winds, but thats not the point) you will beat the fire with water or dirt and there lies the answer. An eye for an eye is part of an “all male” ideology. I’m glad that this era is gone because there just something not fully comforting about that thought.

T.E.D. talk by Jill Bolte Taylor on the Brain

Friday, July 18th, 2008

Wow, this is a really good overview on how the brain works:



Talk by Marius Watz at ITP.

Friday, October 19th, 2007

Marius Watz gave a talk about digital media and digital fabrication of art. He is a Programmer that began his career in the “Media Revolution” of the 1990’s He talked about the difference between “Strong” and “Weak” Artificial Intelligence. He talked about non-human art theories and his view of the direction of computer generated art. He is also the person behind Generator X and The Flickr Group Digital Fabrication. This is an image from Marius’ Flickr Web site:

Marius