Ways of Seeing was published first in 1972. In what ways have publicity images changed since 1972? Consider this specifically:
1) Have the images themselves changed in a significant way?
2) Have the delivery methods for publicity images changed in a significant way (in other words, where do you see publicity images and how might it be different from 1972?)
3) Has the number of publicity images that people see every day changed? How and why?
4) How do you know the difference between a publicity image and an artwork?
Answer by commenting on 1-4 below.
1. Most images to me, haven't changed in a significant way because most are selling a product to a audience and even though the audience may have changed since 1972, it still trys to sell a product and have a type of audience want it.
ReplyDelete2. The delivery methods the book mentioned are still the same methods we use today but we have even more methods now then back in 1972. Publicity images are now also in the internet,which we can get on our computers,phones,tablets,and etc.
3.With all the technology that has been developed since 1972, we see publicity images more then ever. We see it when we are on our computers,at stores,tv's,resturants and etc. Also with so many companies today,competing against each other, they develop even more publicity images then they would have back in 1972,when there was far less companies.
4. This question is quite difficult for me to answer just because the basic answer would be that a artwork is more traditional,with paints for example, and publicity images mainly have text on it with a phrase. But a lot of artworks used to be mainly created to show off what someone has. Publicity used that same method but making the person looking at the image,want what the image is showing.
1. I think that images have changed a little bit since 1972, but not significantly.
ReplyDelete2. Delivery methods for images have defiantly changed since 1972. Things like television, billboards, cell phones, and the internet play a big part in delivering images to people.
3. Yes. People are constantly being exposed to different images. Anywhere we go, we will come in contact with some kind of publicity image. Whether it be on your cell phone, on TV, or on the internet. This is because technology is evolving very fast.
4. I think that a publicity image's main purpose is to advertise to a certain group of people. While artwork isn't really trying to sell to anyone, and just there to provide enjoyment. Also artwork is alot more personal than a publicity image.
-Mike DeMarco
1.-I do believe that images had changed in a more "free" way, back in 1972 the advertising that people saw on TV and/or magazines was a little bit more conservative and appropriate for the society of that time.
ReplyDelete2.- Nowadays we live in a society where advertising is everywhere, therefore what I had heard "Visual Pollution" which is seeing many ads and campaigns that in a way affect the urban landscape.
3.- Any person related to the showbiz has become a celebrity and for instance a brand, those celebrities are doing whatever they can to put their image out there, taking over campaigns with soda companies, retailers, cars anything in order to increase their capital. Therefore people who admire these celebrities are convinced in buying their products and their brand.
4.- I don't there is a major major difference between both since they are all about the reaction that the image could produce in the viewer, it could be an exceptional add for a fashion designer or the whole composition of the image that could move the core of the viewer, but for me the different is that a piece of art could have a value, maybe a personal value in which is reflected the soul of the artist of the soul of the viewer.
Angel Herrera
1. Images have definitely become a bit less restricted in the sense of what is appropriate to be shown, but the purpose of the images have remained the same.
ReplyDelete2. We still have all of the methods mentioned in the book, but we also have more access to more mediums as well. We have the internet which can be accessed from many different places, and that has made a big change in the accessibility of these images.
3. I would say so. The media has grown in general, and what with almost everyone in the US having access to a computer with internet, and a large number of us with portable devices such as smartphones or tablets, we see many more publicity images than we would when the book was published in 1972. As the media expands and certain things become more accessible, it's just logical that we will all see more images than ever before.
4. You know how all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles? It's like that. All publicity images are artworks, but not all artworks are publicity images. What is an artwork is a very relative term, but I think if we define it as something that somebody makes to look nice, publicity images are still artworks. People would, of course, be less likely to want a publicity image hanging on the wall of their living room than a traditional artwork, but that is more of a matter of personal preference and opinion.
~Jess Mooney
So, this conversation is getting more interesting: Should art be beautiful? At least, aesthetically pleasing?
ReplyDeleteIf so, ads do this also. So what's the difference?
Angel's point is interesting: there is no inherent difference between an advertising image and an art image - they're both trying to get a message across. Is it just the messages that are different?
In both, what's the role of intention. If an artist intends for an image to be artistic, does that make it artistic?
Images, as I see it, have definitely changed in 40 years. I think that violence has become more prevalent, women are viewed as more independent (also more sexually), and it is geared towards an age of rapidly advancing technology. In comparison to 1972, publicity, in my opinion, is more common. Publicity is not only in magazines, on buildings, or TV; it is also all over the internet, (which was not publicly available in 1972, only for military use). Through the implementation of the internet, publicity has made its way to gaming consoles, smart phones, laptops, and desktops. Publicity I feel, has also become more personalized. For instance, when a person views a website,(especially social media websites) another website that is viewed later on can tailor its marketing images and ads to the person's interests through the use of cookies.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, much of publicity has remained the same. Take for example, the company Unilever. They produce both Axe for men and Dove products for women. Just like publicity 40 years ago, Axe shows that you will become "manlier" with its use and flocks of women will want to sleep with you, while Dove commercials promote women loving exactly who they are. Obviously genius marketing, because both products are extremely popular. Publicity, as "Ways of Seeing" more or less puts it, is used to create the feeling of envy in the consumer. It is what drives capitalism, through the application of competition and making people believe that they need to spend their money. Artwork nevertheless evokes emotion, but not in the same sense as publicity because it is not supposed to create a sense of envy. Artwork, through the eyes of the artist, is also viewed in the present tense; it is "capturing the moment". Publicity however, is almost always seen as in the past and future.
- Krystal Gold
1. To me most of them are the same besides the few with the rays coming off of it.
ReplyDelete2. You would mainly see them in high populated areas. I would say there different in the sense of the making of them, now its all through computer editing and scanning etc.
3. People see a lot more publicity images a day for sure, because of the television screens that can rotate through multiple images to show than just one like a billboard.
4. Publicity images I feel like have a more advertisement attention getting method while artwork is just the beauty that an artist can imagine and create.