In your response to your peer, you may want to reflect on how their analysis makes you see the image differently than you did before. You may want to add analysis they missed. You may want to challenge their analysis and present a counterargument to the argument the image makes. You have many options, but remember that we are down to our last three journals so you'll want to think about answers that give more than a basic response.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Journal 7
Time to recall the skills we learned for paper one, rhetorical analysis. We are beginning a unit that will ask you to analyze visual arguments: bumper stickers, posters, political cartoons, advertisements, commercials, photographs, etc. You've read about visuals aimed at politics and advocacy and should be able to define what will be our key terms for this unit: subjects, purpose, audiences, contexts, medium, structure, and design. Of course, we will also need logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos. Choose one of the images in the series from today's reading and answer all three questions Beyond Words poses for that image.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I chose to do Andrew Parsons’ photo of an Iraqi women showing her inked finger after casting her ballot in a 2005 Iraqi election at a polling station in Baghdad. Although the image documents a historical event, I think it would be safe to say that is also makes a political argument. The image symbolizes the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a military campaign initiated by the United States in March of 2003. The women’s ability to show her face along with her inked finger portrays the campaigns success in brining down Saddam Hussein’s regime and establishing and protecting Iraq’s newfound democratic system. The woman in the photo proudly displays a smile, interpreted by many as a symbol of the relief and joy of the Iraqi people. The image is a promising symbol of prosperity and hope for the war torn nation in moving forward into a new age of peace and justice. The woman’s hand gesture makes the image more powerful. The hand gesture known across the globe, represent peace and in this image depicts a new era of concord and order in Iraq. I think the photographer chose to focus on this particular voter to summarize and narrow an effort that took years in the making. Using the ethos strategy he chose a women showing her face and wearing a proud smile to make the viewer smile and feel elation. He didn’t chose a woman who showed all her head, because as part of pathos he had to ensure the viewer that this was a Muslim woman who lived by and practiced its conservative beliefs. Using logos, the photographer chose someone with an inked finger to represent the historical election and the efforts in making it possible.
ReplyDeleteThe photo I chose was Margaret Bourke-White's photo of African Americans after the Louisiana flood. The first thing I notice about this photo is the billboard behind the African Americans. A happy white family driving in their car described by the caption, "There's no way like the American Way." Yet, there is a line of homeless, poor African Americans standing directly in front of the billboard. Since color photography was not introduced yet, the black and white photo depicts the difference between moods and race profoundly. The white family are wearing bright colors, have a bright complexion due to skin color and are smiling widely. The African Americans are all wearing dark colors, have dark complexions and are not smiling.I think anyone either passing by during that time or examining this photo will view this scene the same as I have. The billboard and the flood victims are complete opposites and the slogan on the billboard produces irony. This photo is a valuable historical document because this represents the hardship of the Great Depression even further. Adding to the stock market crashing, a flood wiped out many homes and the few survivors are homeless and have very little chance of making it through this time. This photo can also appeal to the never ending issue of racism in the United States. The iconic family represented on television was a happy white family pictured with a father, mother, one son and one daughter. All look clean, well behaved and successful. Many African Americans felt as though this was the ideal family to look like, subconsciously feeling inferior towards the white population.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Diego's response, i agree towards the appeal of ethos, pathos and logos. Using a woman in the first place displays the revolution of equality in Iraq. Her face no longer being covered illustrates confidence in herself and seeing a full smile, not just in her eyes. And the iconic peace sign with one's fingers; that alone touches all readers knowing that finally peace is being experienced in Iraq after so long.
For this journal I chose the Andrew Parsons picture of an Iraqi Woman after she voted in a 2005 national assembly vote in Baghdad. This photo shows an Iraqi woman giving a piece sign with her fingers in which one of them is had ink on it from voting. She also shows a positive and happy expression on her visible face. I think that this picture is a political argument because this picture doesn’t just stand for a historical moment but different concepts about the war effort and Iraqi freedom. I got this view due to the caption that said they were voting for representatives for the Iraqi National Assembly. This shows that America’s efforts have paid off because we push for democracy throughout the world and by Iraq voting on representatives it shows that our war efforts have paid off. In this photo many things are important. One this is her hand gesture of the “V” this stands for peace she is showing that she voted and this will lead her country to finally have peace. This is also symbolizing with America that their thankful for our efforts and they are now peaceful with us. Her black veil symbolizes old Iraqi women and her face symbolizes light and how there is now light and hope in Iraq’s future due to the success of the Iraqi war. Her facial expression also shows how she is happy and that she is not sad or depressed like she probably was when a woman was not aloud to have any say at all but now they do. All these details add to the image by showing the vast improvement and happiness in Iraq’s people and life style by the freedom they are now granted. The photographer chose to focus on this picture the way he did to portray hope, peace and happiness for a better future for Iraqi women and Iraqi people. The choice of subject contributes to ethos by showing how trustworthy a woman in this case would be, since in Iraq they are not aloud to do anything you as a reader can believe that they voted because a woman would not pass on a freedom like this that they would never be aloud to do before. It appeals to pathos by showing how happy she is and how grateful she is of the new found freedom Iraq now has thanks to the war. This picture also appeals to logos by showing reason that the war was beneficial to Iraq and gave them freedom and hope for a better future.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Bree Flowers Post:
I really liked how you touched upon the color contrasting the photographer used. It really shows better by how you explained it with the light and dark colors symbolizing good and bad. I really liked how you touched upon this even though the color is in black and white and I really liked how you had dates and other information to back up what you’re saying. I now see what this picture means and it shows the struggle American’s faced in its early days.
For my journal, I chose to respond to The PETA poster of Kate Ford holding a bunny, calling for a boycott against all types of fur found in clothing. I think that using celebrities as spokespeople for social and political causes is an excellent way to add ethos to any argument, and it helps organizations like PETA gain supporters all the time. These types of appeals do not necessarily sway me because I don't try to do everything just like my favorite celebrities, but I know of many people who would follow every trend set by certain actors, actresses or musicians, even if it meant becoming an animal activist. People love celebrities and view them as role models, so of course they will join the same causes as them. The use of color in the poster is excellent, since it is mostly red. Red is the color of blood and is usually used to represent emotions and actions like agression, violence, and murder. It helps solidify the message that harm is coming to animals for their fur, and that it is ruthless. The white rabbit stands out as a stark contrast to the red in the photo, and I think that's done to show that innocence of the animal. White is a peaceful color, and since the bunny is being consumed on all sides by the color red, it sort of demonstrates how these animals can be trapped by humans' violence unless we do something to help them. As far as the text goes, putting certain words in a bolder font help to show how serious the matter is. To me, the statement "Boycott all fur," which is the simple final sentence of the poster, stands out the most. It sums up all the poster is trying to show and just says what it wants you to do, in plain text. I think it's a pretty effective technique.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Bree: I like how you mention the fact that the contrast in colors shows how bad the Great Depression really was. I also agree with how you mention that the whole picture is ironic in itself, because it truly is. Obviously the "American Way" wasn't exactly working out around the time of this photo.
In response to Bree's post: I like how you compared the clothes they were wearing, I didn't really notice that until you pointed out, and I agree that the ironic photograph depicts social issues. However, I think you could have mention something about the top of the billboard that reads "World's Highest Standard of Living" and discussed the mistruths of that statement.
ReplyDeleteI will respond to the PETA advertisement, because this advertisement stands out the most to me.
ReplyDelete1) I think using celebrities as spokespeople for social and political causes is a good idea, because the advertisement is bound to stand out. When seeing some random model in an advertisement, you may turn the page. But if you see a famous actress or movie star holding a precious little bunny with a caption next to it, you are more than likely to look twice. The celebrities do not necessarily sway me, but I do look a bit closer. Celebrities catch my eye when looking at advertisements. I look twice to see what they are promoting. Celebrities do not necessarily sway me, but I know many people who are obsessed with certain celebrities. They look up to them as role models or idols, and enjoy relating to them. Celebrities are widely known, so using them as spokespeople is a good way to sell a product or idea.
2) The use of color is highly effective. The color is half the reason why I chose this ad. Kate Ford is wearing all red and holding a fluffy white bunny. All of the red makes the white bunny stand out, and also shows how the innocent bunny is so helpless in the hands of a human. Kate Ford is only holding the rabbit, but people who make fur coats can easily harm the rabbit. Red is also a violent color and the color of blood, while white is a pure innocent color. The red surrounding the white stands for the harm that surrounds the helpless bunny.
3) The white lettering is the same color as the bunny, so it kind of builds a bridge between the two. “Try telling him it’s just a bit of fur trim” is a bit ironic, because just a little fur will cost the animal its life. The white lettering pulls together the poster perfectly, the eye moves in a triangle from the top left lettering to the bunny to the bottom left lettering. The whole point of the poster is to lure the eye to the words, and it works perfectly.
In response to Mitch Thompson, I think you captured the poster well. We wrote similarly about the article, and the way you talked about the color was also vivid. I also like how you mentioned how people will do whatever celebrities are doing, which is sometimes true. Also, I didn’t mention the use of the bold letters, but that was very observant of you.
For this journal, I chose to write about the picture by Todd Haisler, Reno, Nevada. The photograph shows three Marines covering the casket of a fallen soldier with an American flag. This picture stood out to me because my best friend is currently in the army. The people in the plane are watching the Marines cover the casket. The caption under the photograph helps people understand what is happening. He says that it is a solider that fought in Iraq. He also turns your attention to the people on the plane, and says, “you gotta wonder what’s going through their minds.” This made me think of what it would be like seeing this in person. Watching someone be honored for what they did for our country. I think the photo alone could still be effective without the caption. Although it explains that the solider fought in Iraq, it could have been determined from the date the picture was taken. I think Heisler chose to keep the passengers in the picture because it adds pathos to the photo. You can see the emotion in the people’s faces as they prepare the fallen solider. I do not think he included the family of the deceased because it was a very hard time for them. I do not think that anybody would want to be photographed then. A viewer of the picture that opposes the war would look and see another life lost because of something they see as unnecessary. On the contrary, someone who is supportive of the war, would view this as a moment of honor, because this person died fighting to protect his country. Both parties however, would agree that the solider deserves to be taken care of properly and given the respect he deserves.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Bree's post,I agree that the picture produced a great deal of irony. THe only thingi noticed with your post is that you did not really say that the photographer used pathos or logos etc.
ReplyDeleteThe image of the victims of the Louisville flood appealed to me the most because of the significant differences amongst the Caucasian and African- American race. The photo was by Margaret Bourke-White and depicted the variations of different races and the effect of the Great Depression upon them. There are poor African-American people standing in line waiting for food and bread is given in that particular line. The people look saddened by the predicament that they are in at the moment; however, the photo is ironic in more ways than one. The caption of the billboard behind those in line states, “World’s Highest Standard of Living- There’s no way like the American Way.” This statement reiterates how people that are not from WASP descendants must assimilate and live the way an American must live which is prosperous. The African- American people are inferior to those of the superior WASP race and have to work hard to achieve the “American Way” lifestyle. The image within the billboard is of a Caucasian family that is filled with joy and smiling and living a life that consists of advantages and opportunities. The kind of clothing that is worn by the different racial groups also shows their socioeconomic stance within the society and that is still likely to occur today. The lack of color in the photo enforces the lifestyle differences amongst the races because the African- Americans are in dark clothing which is associated with sadness while the Caucasians in the billboard have white, bright clothing which emphasizes their happiness. This photo was shown during the best time because it shows how African-Americans suffered during the Great Depression during the year 1937.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mitch:
He mentioned that the white bunny is being consumed by the red paint and it represents how the animal is at risk by the people that kill it to gain its fur and there’s no way that it can escape. I did not think so deeply of the image. Placing words in font does actually draw a person in more and I agree with what was being said about putting them in bold emphasizes the great importance of the statement.
1. I chose to respond to the poster for PETA that features Kate Ford holding a rabbit. This poster is trying to make a statement to tell people to stop purchasing clothes that are made with animal fur. I think that using celebrities for social and political causes is very effective and helps get a certain viewpoint across. Celebrities also help add ethos when trying to persuade someone in an argument. Most of society, including me, tends to look up to celebrities as role models and will follow what that celebrity does. With this in mind many companies and groups use this to their advantage. Using celebrities in social and political causes is also a good idea because it helps catch people’s attention when normally people would just pass it by and not give it the time of day.
ReplyDelete2. The designer of this ad uses two simple colors that make a strong and bold statement. The ad is mostly red which makes it stand out to begin with, but the color red also represents blood, murder, and anger adding to the negative view of using animal fur in clothing. The color of the rabbit is pure white, white represents purity and innocence, this look of innocence and helplessness that the rabbit gives off evokes pathos from the viewer. Even the little detail of Kate Ford's lipstick is important; it pulls the viewer's eyes to her facial expression of disgust. The red and white in this ad effectively contribute to the argument of boycotting all fur.
3. First off, the text makes you understand the message the ad is trying to get across. Without the text you might not be able to figure out why Kate Ford is holding a rabbit. The way the word “him” is bolded allows the viewer to better understand and relate to the rabbit as if it is a person and has feelings to consider. The text is also strategically placed because it pulls the viewer’s eyes from the top of the poster to the bottom making sure you look at the entire ad and understand the message.
In response to Mitch Thompson: We both had very similar ideas about the PETA ad but you made some very good points I did not think about. For example, I really liked how you pointed out the rabbit is being surrounded by the color red and is seems trapped. I also agree that most of society is inspired by things celebrities do, I am one of those people :) Overall I think you analyzed the ad very well.
I chose to do Todd Heisler’s photo of a soldier’s casket being taken off of a plane. Todd Heisler’s caption helped clarify the picture by explaining what war the soldier fought in. Heisler’s caption also gave me a better understanding of what could possibly be going through the mind of the people on that plane looking out of the window at the casket. I did not think about what those people were thinking until I read Heisler’s caption. The text compliments the image very well because it clears up any possible confusion a viewer could have about the image. The text also points the viewer to the row of people inside the plane watching the casket being taken out, without the text talking about the people on the plane, many viewers may have paid very little attention to them. Without the text I feel that the photo would not be as powerful, the text talking about how powerful the process of taking the marine’s casket off definitely made the image stronger. The composition of the photo is very interesting. I believe Heisler chose to show the row of passengers above the casket to give the image another feel to it that it would not have had without the passengers. By showing the passengers it makes one wonder about their feelings and how they are being affected by the casket being on their plane. I think that Heisler chose not to show the family on the tarmac because if Heisler showed the family grieving on the tarmac, most people would have just been stricken with grief. By not showing the family, it gives the viewer a more neutral view and let’s them make up their mind about how they feel about the photo. I think that someone who supports U.S. involvement in the war would respond to the image differently than someone who opposes it. I think that someone who supports the war would say that the marine died for a worthy and noble cause, where as someone who is against the war would respond by saying that this person’s death was unnecessary and could have been prevented. However, I think they would both agree that the death was tragic and the marine was very courageous in volunteering to give his life for his country.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Diego Gonzalez: I thought your point about the photographer using ethos was very good. I didn’t think about how the woman smiling in turn made me smile and me happy.
Growing up in a military family, the picture captured by Todd Heisler in Reno, Nevada definitely caught my attention rather than any of the other images in the collection. Heisler’s explanation in his caption helps the audience understand exactly what he is capturing in this image. In his caption he states that the uniformed Marines had climbed into the cargo hold of a plane to drape an American flag over the casket over a deceased soldier. The picture is a powerful one as it shows, but the text Heisler uses in accordance with the image is beneficial because it gives the audience a detailed description of the scene and what is happening. I think Heilser chose to not show the family in this photo not out of respect to them, but because the audience can easily predict what their reactions would look like. I think that he chose to have the line of passengers on the plane because it shows the reactions of people who are not actually connected to the soldier specifically. The people on the plane are basically a representation of how American’s would react to seeing this. Leaving out the family lets the viewer of the photo react the way they would in the same situation. I think that a person who did not support the war would react harshly and say that the soldier died for a respectable cause. While those against the war would argue that another young man has fallen for other peoples purposes. The only thing that I would think that the two different parties would commonly agree on is that this soldier was an American hero.
ReplyDeleteIn response to sab10:
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you said, except I do not exactly agree with how you argued why Todd Heisler decided not to show the grieving family in the photograph. I think that he left them out of the picture not out of respect like you stated, but to give the audience a way of reacting to the scene more naturally or as if they were there as a passenger on the plane.
For this journal, I chose to use PETA's ad featuring Kate Ford holding the rabbit. When it comes to using celebrities as a spokesperson, I think there are pros and cons. A pro would be the fact that audiences are familiar with a celebrity's face, right away putting the audience at ease for what the ad is trying to convey. If a company had used a random model, the ad would be met with more skepticism than an ad featuring a familiar celebrity. A con would be how a company almost exploits celebrities to get a message across. Another term for this situation is that a celebrity is "selling out", meaning that they agree to do the ad because of the exposure and paycheck they receive from doing the ad. The use of color motifs in the ad is particularly effective with the red and white color scheme. First of all, all the text is noting how using fur is wrong, and the color of the text matches the target of what is being said: the rabbit. Everything else being red not only represents the literal blood that would occur fro mthe practice of obtaining for, but to also represent how common the practice is and how it completely surrounds the lives of animals. The tone of the first statement, "Try telling him it's just a bit of fur trim" seems like a lighthearted statement, referring to the fur trim seen in items of luxury, such as coats, boots, pillows, etc. But upon further examination of the ad, the audience realizes that "him" is the rabbit, the very source from which we derive our luxury.
ReplyDeleteIn response to lauren, I think you've shown that you really understand what makes this advertisement effective. From the celebrity to the colors of the ad, you've clearly explained why this ad would be successful in grabbing an audience's attention. Ii'd like to see you go a little deeper and explain the reverse side, as to why this ad could be negative, or even not work out!
The image I have chosen to talk about is the picture where the lady in the red dress and fur gloves is holding an innocent looking rabbit. The ad says, “Tell him it’s just a bit of fur trim.” The message is talking about explaining to the rabbit that it is just a tiny bit of his fur that will be used. It also says that many rabbits and animals are skinned alive every day for their fur to make several clothing and other goods. One factor that really takes a jab at people is the fact that everything around the rabbit is red. Red normally represents evil, blood, and death in American culture and people will associate violent people with those who wear rabbit and other animal fur. It definitely appeals to logos because there are number facts that many animals are skinned alive for their fur and the numbers are staggering. Another factor in this picture is that it is not an evil looking man holding a terrified rabbit; it is an innocent looking woman holding a fluffy content rabbit. This points out that the people who wear fur and are killing rabbits is not limited to men, but women and so on in our society. This is just a start to lead on to other cruelty to animals, and PETA is making a statement with this picture. If they can convince the audience that this one instance is wrong, then others will start to protect more animals.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mitch, I tried not to talk about the woman being a celebrity because I saw your post and completely agree. Celebrities have a huge impact on society and often influence the actions we make. Showing her there draws attention as well as promotes PETA’s cause.
The photo I choose was the Todd Heisler, Reno, Nevada, 2005. As I was looking at it I did not know what it was about. I say the plane and then I looked more closely I say the soldiers. Then I understood what was going on. With the texts I understood what was going on. Even if the texted was not there I could understand what was going on if you looked close enough. I think that the picture without the text would be just as powerful, you do not need someone to explain what is going on in the photo. I think that he chose to show the passengers because it to me drew me to where they were looking. They all were looking to one spot and then made my attention go there. I think that he chose not to show the family because that is a very sad and hard think to see for them. If it were my brother coming home like that I would not want anyone taking pictures of me. That is something that no one ever needs to see. I think that it is possible that people who support the war would react differently than those who didn’t. They would probably both show compassion and remorse for the people that lost their family member but that people against the war would mostly like not stick around too long. Whereas the supports would wait for the solider to get off the plane and to his or hers family.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Bree: I liked how you talked about the what America is trying to portray and what is really going on. I also liked how you talked about how that Africans looked, such as their clothing and body language compared to the picture.
I choose the photo of the Marine’s casket being unloaded from the airplane. The caption substantially contributes to my understanding of the photo. The picture obviously explains that the dead person in the casket is an American soldier, for me the focus of the picture alone is the dead soldier. That is the focal point of the picture therefore little attention is paid to the row of passengers above the cargo area. The caption switches the focus to the passengers who watch the family of the fallen soldier gather on the tarmac and watch as their loved one is unloaded from the plane. This causes a deep sense of patriotism by stating that those passengers will never forget the day when they accompanied a dead soldier home from war. I believe that Heisler chose not to include that family gathered on the tarmac because by only showing the passengers who are strangers to the soldier it creates a different effect, relating to all American citizens. Strangers will always remember the flight with the soldier not because they knew him or are related to him, but because of the fact that they didn’t know him, yet he died for their freedom and now his family must cope with the loss. All the faces of the passengers looking out at the soldier are serious faces, adding to the effect this photo has on its viewers, it is easy to get emotional simply by looking at the photo. The response of pro-war and anti-war audiences will for the most part be the same. Except in the case of rare radicals that protest soldier’s funerals and despise soldiers for fighting, most people respect soldiers and are thankful for their sacrifices, especially those who have died while protecting our freedom.
ReplyDeleteIn response to sab10:
I agree with you that the faces of the passengers displayed emotions through pathos. I also agree that the caption turns your attention to the passengers. However as I wrote in my response I believe the family was most likely left out of the picture because that takes the personal element out of it. With only a plane full of strangers all Americans can relate more to the photo, not just those family members of soldiers. I like how you separated anti-war and pro-war audiences differently than I did. You made a very good point! Great response over all!
For this journal, I chose to respond to the picture that has the car with many bumper stickers on it because when I first saw it, I wanted to read all the bumper stickers and it got me thinking. The bumper stickers are advocating peace in Earth and the conservation of our planet. The bumper stickers are short and simple, but they say so much within them. They show the emotion of the driver and how the person feels about the war that is occurring today, the conservation of planet Earth on abortion and on weed. The audiences that these bumper stickers can reach are peace advocates, people against war, people who want to conserve our planet and marijuana users. The limitations of these bumper stickers are that only drivers would be able to see stickers and most would not have time to read all the stickers. The stickers on the Ford car tell us that the driver wants to legalize marijuana because there is a Bob Marely sticker and a sticker that says, “Liberate Marijuana.” The peace sign sticker and the sticker with the dove indicate that the driver supports world peace and the go green stickers suggest that the driver is a conservationist. The driver is also against war and the anti-war sticker was one of my favorites because it says that war doesn’t decide who’s right, just who is left and I thought that that is a clever saying. The fact that the license plate says California is a factor that makes a difference because California is known to be a liberal state and seeing these stickers there is much more common than seeing them somewhere up north. If I had to design a bumper sticker, it would be for animal abuse and I would create clever sayings and pictures that support my cause, like the war sticker. Although there are many various different arguments being shown in the different bumper stickers of the car, I can agree with most.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gary Wong,
I agree with what you said about the celebrities. If companies had random actors has their spokes people, the companies would not do as well because most of the time the companies sell for the name and who uses the product. It also agree that it is harmful for the celebrity because the audience knows that they are just doing it for the money and to put their name out there.
I am analyzing the pictures with the Iraqi Women. I believe this picture depicts a political argument because in the caption it says that the Iraqis haven’t been able to elect any official since 2003, due to the United State takeover. One may make the argument that democracy in Iraq is on the rise. The ink signifies that people have voted and that they do have a say so in who is elected, how the government is ran, and they final have a voice in their society. The most important aspects of this vote is that it depicts a women who has just voted. In the middle east, women had been oppressed for a long time. This picture depicts the evolution of women in that society as well. Not only are people getting their rights back, but also many people, especially women are gaining more rights. Also in this picture I believe the woman’s finger depicts victory. What many have been waiting for a long time is finally happening and that change is evident. Finally her veil is pulled back and you are allowed to see her face. This is a big step because women for a long time were not allowed to show their faces, and now they have a prominent identity and are recognized in public now. Perhaps voting and a new democracy is helping the change. I believe the photographer focused on this particular person because she signified the most dramatic change during this time. The contributed to a powerful statement and showed to all that democracy, hope, change, and a brighter future was on their hands. The logos in this picture are that women are part of society and they should have the rights as males. Ethos are that women are strong figures that have endured to get to that victory in history. Finally, pathos are that younger girls will look forward to a world where they may not have struggles like the women before them.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Dillon Cole: Although we have different interpretation o f the photo I do agree that it shows a new light for that society. However, the women’s two fingers to me depicts more of a victory for Iraqi women because they went through so much to get to that point. You focused more on how Iraqis in general are gaining their rights while I saw this picture as not only Iraqis gaining their rights but women obtaining them for the first time.
1. When I first look at this photo I notice the large billboard behind a line of black people struggling through rough conditions. The American family behind them has a carefree outlook, taking in life the “American way”. As a family they are all smiling, each looking a different direction, observing the view. Underneath them, however, are the faces of depression of poor, homeless black people, craving new lifestyles. At the time this photo was taken a passerby would in my opinion, not have viewed this the same way. During the depression times were hard for everyone. However, the irony would have been viewed the same. Now in the twenty first century looking back this picture represents a small part of a whole. Although this does not sum up the depression, it portrays the unfortunate circumstances very well. The neglect of color in this photo illuminates the skin color and the contrast between the homeless blacks and the carefree whites.
ReplyDelete2. At first glance there is the apparent contrast between the skin color of the blacks and whites. Notably, the white family all have smiles from ear to ear, while the blacks are all incredibly straight-faced. The American family is captured wearing bright clothes and hats, while the black men and women are seen in dark coats, to match their gloomy state of being. Also, the American family demonstrates a family bond, while underneath all the men and women appear to be on their own, some with their backs faced to others.
3. The Great Depression was a severe downfall after World War II. This photo does not capture the whole depression, revealing every aspect, but it does give a glimpse of the struggles during that time. A lifestyle dreamed of was close to unattainable. Pathos is certainly put to use in the photo. The sad, gloomy faces of the black people evoke a strong sense of pity and sympathy. Kairos was also utilized, considering the time the photo was taken.
In response to Diego Gonzalez: After reading your blog, I pictured the Indian woman much differently. I did not look at her inked finger as a symbol of success. However, after reading what you had to say, I do agree.
I first noticed the distinct contrast between the billboard (“The American Way”) and the actual life of the people who are suffering in America. When I hear “The American Way” I think of equality, freedom, and equal opportunities to all no matter the background. But this picture does not live up to what the billboard advertises as “The American Way”. The family in the billboard are a happy well off white family with the “World’s Highest Standards of Living” but the African American’s below are not living to the highest standards and none of them have a smile on their faces. Contrast is the first thing that pops out in this photograph. I do not think that people passing by would have noticed this distinct contrast. It needed to be shot and caught in time by photograph so people could really see what was happening. One of the ways she framed it is that the African Americans are clearly below the white Americans on the billboard which could symbolize African American’s status in society in that point in time. This image could be called ironic because the African “Americans” are not living the “The American Way” even though they are American. This photo alone speaks numbers on how African Americans were not given the equal opportunities that “The American Way” promised Americans. Which really meant white Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to: mth10e
When I first saw the photo I didn’t even notice the passengers in the windows above. After reading your response, did I notice the passengers above looking out. I can see now that the passengers feel for the family of the fallen but they are also kind of ignorant. I feel that the focus would be on the marines who are carrying out the body of their fellow comrade. They are the ones who truly know exactly what they sacrificed for the country. I feel that this photo could be used to get Americans to take more of an interest in the soldiers and seamen who sacrifice their lives and to not take it for granted.
For this journal I chose the Andrew Parsons picture of an Iraqi Woman after she voted national assembly vote in Baghdad. In the caption of the photo it said that they were voting for representatives for the national assembly. In this picture the woman seems happy. The expression on her face seems very content. Also, she is showing a piece sign which adds on to my belief that she is pleased. The fact that she just casted a vote shows that this picture is a political argument. Iraqui’s are finally receiving freedom and based on this picture it is clear that this is something they have wanted for a long time. This picture shows the women in a black veil which is what women of this culture traditionally wear. This to me symbolizes the old ways of Iraq and the fact that she voted is symbolizing the new Iraq. Women in Iraq are finally able to vote in Iraq this is a huge accomplishment. This shows that America’s efforts have paid off because we push for democracy throughout the world and by Iraq voting on representatives it shows that our war efforts have paid off. The woman in the photo proudly displays a smile, interpreted by many as a symbol of the relief and joy of the Iraqi people.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kassandra Carr, you correctly evaluated the picture. I agree with you that the picture shows a huge difference in lifestyles between Caucasians and African Americans.