Comic Post #2

In the previous comic, a man and a woman were seen shopping with nothing but undergarments on but they didn’t seem to be bothered by the fact that they were out of place. Several convenience stores have what is known as a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” policy in tact which prohibits anyone who is not following as the rule says from entering in to the store. Many people, store managers being at the head of this group, believe it is unsanitary to not wear shoes into a public place. They see it as being more of a health risk to other customers and to themselves more than anything. There is no law in the state of Nebraska that says you cannot wear shoes into public places, but rather it is up to the establishment itself to determine whether or not you are allowed to wear them. This policy, however, is very different from indecent exposure.

Indecent exposure is defined as “The deliberate exposure by a person of a portion or portions of his or her own body under circumstances where such an exposure is likely to be seen as contrary to the local commonly accepted standards of decency, and may in fact be a violation of law. In some countries a breach of the standards of modesty is considered to be public indecency.” The key part of this definition is understanding that it is only thought of as indecent exposure when the local commonly accepted standards of decency have been violated. If these people would have been sporting their lovely underwear around, say a colony of nudists, they would be much more welcomed. Clearly in this photo we have two citizens who have indecently exposed themselves. Although this is against the law and these people could be fined for it (of course, this is a comic) we as the audience find this humorous. Why? Over the past several years America’s idea of humor and acceptable clothing has radically changed. Humor is “the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement.” (Wikipedia) Humor occurs when the brain recognizes a pattern that surprises it which is why we find the old people funny... We are surprised by the fact that they would not be wearing clothes in public.

1910, Anette Kellerman was arrested for wearing a one piece swimsuit in Australia. Nowadays, women’s one piece swimsuits are thought of as being the kind of swimsuit to wear when you don’t want to show too much skin. Also, American society today finds nudity and sexual based jokes funnier than it used to. Some of today’s “funniest” movies are full of indecent exposure and sexual innuendoes. Take “Zack and Miri Make a Porno” for example. If this movie wouldn’t have been banned from movie screens ten or twenty years ago solely because of its name, it would definitely have been banned due to its incredibly bawdy content. But in today’s society this movie was able to make $57,368,762. This is including DVD sales as well. Humor is something that is evolving with the human race. Future generations will find some things funnier than what, say, freshmen in college find funny. As humor keeps changing, it will continue to surprise humans.

Comic Post #1

This comic illustrates three people who are shopping at a convenience store. The two people on the left look very worn and shaggy, almost like they had just gotten out of bed and they appear to be older, and possibly retired. They also are much heavier set than than the other citizen shopping alongside them. The woman says “We usually shop in the comfort of our own home but the bloody computer crashed.” The woman standing next to the disheveled couple is very taken aback by what she sees at the convenience store, after all it isn’t every day that you see people openly wearing nothing but undergarments out in public. It is clear that the woman on the right is confused as to what she sees because of her tilted head and her the fact that her eyes are slightly sagging, but what makes this comic so funny as that the older couple seem to not be aware that it is not normal to go out in public in the kind of condition that they are in. They are completely oblivious to the fact that they are making a scene at the convenience store.

The audience can tell from what the woman is saying that there is clearly no evidence of her being aware of the fact that she is completely out of place in her environment. The audience is also intrigued by the partially clothed couple solely because of the fact that in our society today, it is not acceptable to go out in public when you do not have “proper” clothes on. In almost any convenience store today these kind of people would be either arrested, asked to leave, or thought of as senile for so casually walking around in public.

The text in this comic is written in a goofy looking font. The woman saying this also has her tongue out and has a sort of “can you believe this?” look on her face. We are able to tell that the lady on the left is being serious but doesn’t understand that no one else is able to take her seriously because of her physical appearance. She is given a goofy persona by the way the text is written, the curly, unkempt hair, and because of the clueless look on her face. The man on the left adds an incredible amount of character to the comic. Although he doesn’t say anything in the comic, he is clearly just as oblivious to being out of place as his wife is. He also shows signs of being bed ridden because of his scruffy beard and frilly hair.

The pun in this comic is the fact that nowadays many people do their shopping online. Internet sites like ebay.com, and Amazon.com often advertise with sayings that hint towards shopping being so easy that you can do it in the comfort of your own home. Overall, this comic was very clever and gave me a good laugh.

WP1

In the photo, “new labour,” there are several ways that the photograph brings out the idea of resistance and defiance. Most clearly, the arrows pointing in the opposite direction of the protesters. The argument that the author of this photo is making is that it is good to go against social norms when you have strong enough feelings towards something that you want to show your affection for.
Although there are some very obvious audiences who are going to read this, such as the class and Joshua, there are several secondary audiences. These secondary audiences may include people who agree with the point that the photographer is trying to drive home and people who disagree with it. Viewing this picture at first glance, without having knowledge of its background may lead an audience to think that its just a busy day in random city. You would not be able to gain any knowledge of what is actually happening in this picture. However, if you did know about the background of this picture, you would be able to make more of an educated synopsis. Since pathos is how your audience feels about what you are doing, knowing your political party and your views on the Iraq war would have an enormous impact on how you view this picture. The people walking away from the arrows could put a “cause” in to play that says they are defiant towards the United States’ position in the war. The effect here is that you may have many people who are for this and many who are not.
This photograph can connect with younger people a lot easier than someone who has grown out of youthful qualities. As young students on a college campus, we are often faced with several decisions that can go against law or social norms. In this photo, we see several people working together to show their feelings on an important issue. They are expressing the right to protest against something that a lot of people, especially people who hold high positions in society and government think the opposite about. We as students constantly find ourselves fighting or arguing with higher authority. Older people who view this photo may find themselves getting angry or disagreeing with some of the ideals that this photo brings out. Often, younger people are put under strict guidelines and restrictions by higher authorities like parents, teachers, and other people who hold high positions in society.
This picture, along with every other picture in the album is taken in black and white which gives it sharp detail especially on the main focal points, the arrows, but makes sure that the highlights of the photo are not completely blown out. There are smoother transitions from shade to shade and it is overall, a lot easier to view. It is cut in half by the street line that runs directly down the middle of the picture. The viewer is sucked in to the photo because the arrows point directly at the audience. It draws itself attention, especially when it is viewed next to several other pictures because it has two big arrows which draw viewers into the context of the picture.

Another interesting point of this picture is that it is not taken straight on. If you look closely, you realize that the photo is tilted. This not only draws the audience into the context of the photo, but it makes the audience feel like they are a part of the crowd. It seems as though you are walking right behind the crowd. Overall, this photo does a great job of grabbing the viewers attention and giving the audience a clear picture of defiance.

Documentary Photography #3

As I mentioned in the previous post, there are several ways that the photo, “new labour” brings up the idea of defiance and resistance. You would need to understand the history and background of this photo to get the true meaning behind the picture. Obviously there is something wrong in this picture. Something out of the ordinary is happening. People have flooded the streets and there is something that is obscure about the fact that there are two enormous arrows pointing in the opposite direction of the large crowd.

Police said that in February of 2003, the biggest demonstration of protesters in the history of London took to the streets to shows their anti-war feelings. (BBC) Europe in general was incredibly upset with the Iraq war. “New labour” was taken in London, England in April of 2003. At the time, the governing party in was called “The Labour Party,” which explains the pun in the title of the photograph “new labour.” It was taken right in the heat of the invasion of Iraq, which was led by The United States of America, but was backed by British forces. (Wikipedia)
Although the United States was the main force in this war with 248,000 troops, Great Britain had the second most with 45,000. The leaders of these nations claimed that the reason for the war was “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” Opinion polls taken in Spain and Italy revealed that upwards of 90% of the population opposed the war. In London, it is estimated that between one and two million people marched in the streets to protest the war in April. There were over 600 cities across the world that marched during the time of invasion, which The Guinness Book of World Records estimates as the largest mass protest movement in history. (Wikipedia)

It wasn’t just a few countries whose citizens turned out to show endorse the protest of the Iraq war. According to Dominique Reynie, a French academic, between January 3 and April 12 of 2003, thirty six million people worldwide took part in around three thousand protests.

Works Cited

"BBC News World Edition." 'Million' March Against Iraq War. 16/Feb/2003. BBC, Web. 30 Sep 2009.

"Protests Against The Iraq War." Wikipedia. 2009. Web. .

Documentary Photography #2

In the photo, “new labour,” there are several ways that the photograph brings out the idea of resistance and defiance. Most clearly, the arrows pointing in the opposite direction of the protesters. There are many other ways that the picture has characteristics of anarchy though. Typically, streets are a place to drive automobiles and this street in particular appears to be a one way street. The group of people here refuse to follow the social norm of walking on the sidewalk because they have decided that what they believe in is more important than following typical social structure.

These arrows are arranged so that they are set about equidistant from the border of the picture and they can literally cut the picture in to two halves, making the picture almost look like a mirror. The ethos that is shown here allows the audience to view a picture that is very simple to find visual hierarchy. The large arrows are the first things that people notice in this picture. Seeing that the arrows are pointed directly at the audience, they can suck the audience into the picture. They become the main focal point because they point at the viewer. This draws the viewer in to more detail.

Pathos can be found in this photo, however, you would need to know the background of this photo to be able to make a knowledgeable, educated summary of it. Viewing this picture at first glance, without having knowledge of its background may lead an audience to think that its just a busy day in random city. You would not be able to gain any knowledge of what is actually happening in this picture. However, if you did know about the background of this picture, you would be able to make more of an educated synopsis. Since pathos is how your audience feels about what you are doing, knowing your political party and your views on the Iraq war would have an enormous impact on how you view this picture. This picture is trying to bring out the idea that the Iraq war was unnecessary. The people walking away from the arrows could put a “cause” in to play that says they are defiant towards the United States’ position in the war. The effect here is that you may have many people who are for this and many who are not. This means that this photo is not just a photo to look at and say “Oh, that sure is pretty!” Rather, it sends a message and the audience who views it can either be for it or against it. It divides the audience in half, just as it has done with the arrows on either side with the street line going down the middle.

Personally, I think this picture is very inspiring. After researching more about London and the social turmoil in Europe during the war, it is appealing to me that so man people can come together to show their disapproval of the war. I have been raised a Democrat and have never believed that the Iraq war was important enough for the United States to take such serious steps in trying to bring down the Hussein-ran government. All in all, this picture is not only a well taken photograph, but it is also takes a distinctive political stance.