The Bluest Eye & Lipstick Jihad

The Bluest Eye and Lipstick Jihad both featured characters whose outward appearances affected the inward of understanding themselves. Their situations were complicated in terms of the ways individuals are contextualized in particular historical, cultural, and geographical situations because Pecola Breedlove (The Bluest Eye) and Azadeh Moaveni (Lipstick Jihad) both came to realize that finding their identities did not have the turnout in the end as they had imagined.

In the Bluest Eye, Pecola felt that she was ugly because that was what people told her. Praying for the blue eyes of all the blond, blue-eyed girls in America, she thought they would make her pretty afterall. She imagined that if she had blue eyes, "the bluest eyes" as she thought, people would be jealous of her because of her gift. Fantasizing about the one asset that she saw everyone fascinate about, she thought, would make her feel more of an acceptance to her community and its people. Because blue-eyed girls, and baby dolls given to her as gifts, were looked upon as the 'idea of beautiful,' Pecola wishes for blue eyes, in hope that she will become beautiful. In the end, she fantasizes that her wish has been granted and she finally has her blue eyes, but no one pays her much attention, which she thinks is because of their jealousy for her blue eyes.

In Lipstick Jihad, Azadeh Moaveni was struggling to find her identity as an Iranian growing up in American. After college, she decides to move back to her homeland, Tehran, and try to figure out if she can still consider herself a citizen there although she moved away years ago. Her journey through Tehran was what she was least expecting it to be. Her expectations of the country were far more different than what she was used to in California. Her time spent in Tehran, she witnessed the restrictions placed on men and women-where women were not allowed to associate or be seen in public with the opposite sex and required to have all parts of their bodies covered at all times except their faces, which they beautified with the popularity of cosmetic surgery, and later where they were not allowed to smoke. No finding at all as to her reason being there, Azadeh came to realize that Tehran "defied being known; its mood changed mercurially by the day, the scope of its horizon seemed to expand and shrink by the season, and even its past was a contested battle" (p.245) After realizing this was not where she belonged, Azadeh returned to Calafornia and came to the conclusion that her identity-experincing journey left her " all displaced and Iran-disfigured" (p.246).

'Regarding the Pain of Others' responses

The first quote (p.76) "That a glory...not in real life.," I think Sontag is trying to get at the point that 'photographs tend to transform their subject as [if] it is not real life,' because artists take pictures of war as if they are beautiful, when they are only terrifying images of what is really there.

The second quote (p.76) "Transforming...like art.," Sontag, I believe, is explaining photographs that show images of war can not taken as a beautiful image, because that would make it 'too much like art.' Art is supposed to be beautiful, images of war are not beautiful, therefore pictures taken of war can not be shown as a beautiful image because there is nothing beautiful about the pictures of war, just pain.

The third quote (p.95) "One can...look at them.," Sontag is saying how people show feel 'obliged' to look at the photographs taken of war because artists did not have to take these images, but there are people who are interested in pictures of mutilated bodies.

The fourth quote (p.101) "Compassion...communicated.," I think Sontag is saying that because 'compassion is an unstable emotion,' it is an emotion that will never go away. What we can do with feelings that have been aroused and knowledge that have been communicated is stop showing so many things of terrifying images, pictures are supposed to be memories, and nobody wants to keep a memory of sad things.

The fifth quote (p.114) "To designate...with others.," I think Sontag is basically saying that without this images of war, we will not be able to experience the pain and emotions as the people involved. As she writes, 'enlarging one's sense of how much suffering caused by human wickedness there is,' we should know that it is happening in the world that we share with these people.

The sixth quote (p.115) "The image says...Don't forget.," Sontag is explaining that the images taken are to show that people volunteer to do these things, and that 'don't forget,' they are not forced.

The last and seventh quote (p.115) "Perhaps...thinking.," Sontag is saying that when people look at these pictures, do not try to just memorize what you see, but think about what is going on at that moment. "Remembering is an ethical act, has ethical value in and of itself. Memory is, achingly, the only relation we can have with the dead.," so if we just look at these horrifying images, we are just probably thinking how disgusting they are, we are not trying to think about what happened or how that person's family may feel knowing that they lost a loved one.

Plans for Midterm Research Paper

Nike is one of the most popular brands that is worn by many. Despite the fact that a lot of their shoes (and other products) cost a lot of money, consumers still feel 'urged' to buy this brand. For the midterm research paper, I plan to research the Nike Corporation. I want to get all of the details, from how much their manufacturers make overseas to produce these products, to how they advertise their products and in what ways to appeal to the outside world. I want to know all of the 'dirt' behind this corporation because I personally purchase a lot of there products, despite the cost.

I will go about presenting and supporting this research by founding scholar articles on any lawsuits they have had, if they have ever shown their consumers appreciation and in what ways. I do not plan to do a lot of my research using the internet because I want to see if I can find all of this information I am searching for in books, magazines, journals, etc.. Although that is quite tough to do since our world today is centered around technology, I hope I do not have to use the internet, even though I know I can find everything I am looking for. We will see.

My sources, as I have stated before, are scholarly electronic sources, hopefully except for the internet itself. I want to point out Nike's financial success today versus how it was when it first began. I also want to point out the changes they have made in their products and prices due to the rise and fall of the country's economy. I am not sure exactly of the argument I am trying to make, but I do want to open the eyes of consumers and present the 'known' and 'unknowns' of how corporations really feel about the advertising industry, how we continuously support businesses who do not appreciate the support or either do not care. Nike may not be this type of business but I plan to find out what type of business they are.

Sontag, Photography

In her article, "On Photography," Susan Sontag discusses points of how people have used the art of photography in the past and how people use it today, how changes in photography has 'claimed our attention.' There were plenty of specific quotes she said that I found intriguing. From the two chapters,two points I'd like to respond on is how Sontag reports 'photographs furnish evidence,' and how in earlier decades, photographs were taken of something containing beauty.

In chapter 1, Sontag states how 'photographs furnish evidence.' By that phrase she meant that we, as people, do not believe everything we hear, but if we see a photograph of it, it seems more realistic or true. I agree because anybody can start a rumor based on their own assumptions and it does not mean that it is technically 'true' or 'false,' but if we were to see a picture of something reported, there is a possibility that the photograph is more accurate information than 'word-of-mouth.' For example, in the entertainment industry, paparazzi take pictures of famous people to show the world everything about that person, whether it is what they are doing, what they have on, or who they are with, and because we see these pictures we believe it as if we were to hear about it on the radio.

In chapter 2, Sontag states that 'in earlier decades, a photographers' aim [was] to photograph something beautiful,' but Edward Steichen photographed a milk bottle to aim at a different type of beauty. If it was not for Steichen for taking a different approach on photographing objects, photography probably would not be as unique as it is today. Beauty is defined differently among people. All things possess beauty in one way or another, it is how the photographer decides to capture it to make it appeal beautiful to all.

Photography is different today. Technology is rising at a faster rate by the days, making things possible and easier than they were when photography first began. Photographs capture so many things; they capture memories, beauty, love, and many other interpretations depending on how the photographer chooses to present it, but as Sontag stated, "being educated by photographs is like being educated by the older, more artisanal images." It is not always what is photographed, but how it is photographed.

After reading Klein's "No Logo" article, I realized that she had a very strong opinion about how producers publish their brand name products. She provided a lot of insight on the truth behind 'brand name' products. She made points that I found very interesting. I even begin to think about some of the products I choose over brand-names after reading this article.

She writes that her article, "No Logo," is an 'attempt to capture an anticorporate attitude that she sees emerging among many young activists,' and also that her 'book is hinged on a simple hypothesis-as more people discover the brand-name secrets of the global logo web, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement.' I would consider she means that when everyone finally realizes that most 'brand-names' are not as they are portrayed to be, people would consider spending their money on 'non name-brand' products because they would be more satisfactory guaranteed. Another point I found intersting was how she stated that what 'the companies produced were not things but images of their brand-names.'...'Their real work lay not in manufacturing but in marketing,' meaning that most companies are in the business for the money and not the customer satisfaction, although that is what they all promise. Also I think she means that people buy these products because of the status of the 'brand-name', because brand name products are advertised to be better than the non name-brand products,which in all cases is not true i think.

Reading the article, I realize that her points make a lot of sense. Many people buy products because it is "supposed" to be a better product. Many products, such as some non name-brand clothing and food look better and last longer (clothes) and taste better (food) than brand-names, and they cost a lot less. If that's the case, then why do people still like to spend their money on products that's not guaranteeing all of the satisfaction that they can receive more of from non name-brand products?

-
- After reading the articles "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer and "Selling Culture" by Ohman, I can see that each had there own opinions and views about how they viewed culture. Though both had agreeable and disagreeable points of why they theorized culture the way they did, both did not support their theories in good ways. All authors felt, in some ways, the same way about particular topics about culture, but a few were different.

One point from Adorno and Horkheimer's article that I found in relation to Ohman's article was their view on the culture industry. They wrote that "the culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises." I feel this is somewhat true depending on the product they're advertising. Adorno and Horkheimer did not offer a solution to this problem if this was how they felt the culture industry. Ohman's article,on the other hand, offers a strategy for businessmen to execute. He stated that 'rather than allying themselves with competitors,or swallowing them up,or making the government their executive committee, the masters of production could become engineers of consumptions.' He knew that although this strategy would not end competition,it could moderate it in two ways: First, companies could divide constomers up into "shares" of the market, and develop brand loyalties among them, so that competition would no longer be a voracious struggle ending in total domination or extinction. Second, companies could squeeze out smaller competitors and make it harder for new ones to gain entry.

Adorno and Horkheimer criticized a lot about the problems of the cultural industry, but rarely gave any explanations or soloutions that could hel fix these problems. Ohman's article gave his insight on capitalism, cultural indutry, and advertising, but he also gave a reason why he felt the way he did. He even added a little history of when some products got started, who started them, and why they started them.