Prompt 7

The type of body modification that is seen as normative, as in, in an attempt to achieve mainstream society’s ideal of beauty by using body modification to achieve ‘normal’ look, is also subject to Pitt’s argument of radical body modification. Normative and non-normative body modification alike is used in moderation by the mainstream. Most people only get a few tattoos or body piercings, just like most people engage in only mild amounts of normative body modification. On this opposing end of the spectrum, there’s a variety of cosmetic surgeries which I would equivocate to radical body modification. These are much the same in several ways. One, they are painful and pose risk to health, just like radical non-normative body modification. Two, they alter the body from it’s ‘natural’ state dramatically. From collagen to silicone, sucking to sewing, many of these procedures are even more radical as compared to non-normative body modification, in regards to how much the body is altered. The process overall is very similar, simply achieving results striving for a different end. The major difference is that these body modifications are ‘hidden’. People that have been cosmetically altered can often pass as ‘natural’. In that way, it isn’t as subject to taboo as much. However, if one is aware of the extensive cosmetic surgeries another might have gotten, I believe they would be subject to similar scrutiny like that of a non-normative body modifier. Cosmetic surgery is often viewed as extreme vanity; a criticism body modification escapes. But in essence, both types of modification are methods of enhancing a body; similar ends are gained through similar means. Another major difference is that normative body modification seems to end at a very specific standard; there are a vast variety of ways to modify one’s body on the non-normative spectrum; limitless amount of art, piercings wherever one can find a place to put them, vast designs of scarification. However, in normative body modification, one cannot select from a great variety of noses, lips, chins or breasts, because only a few ‘ideals’ are sought after. There’s a good reason why it’s difficult to tell models in magazines apart. While the non-normative body modifier has freedom of expression (to a relatively greater extent), the normative body modifier has conformation to society’s very selective beauty ideal.

Prompt 6

So-called ‘academic prose’ or college writing has been taught to students from elementary all the way into college. It is a formal style of writing, where one does not use vernacular language, but instead uses formal wording and sentence structure. This kind of writing is often composed into paragraphs, each with a main idea. These paragraphs may be then arranged into the five-paragraph essay, which typically includes an introduction with a thesis, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion. This is taught in English classes , but also is expected in many other school subjects when a paper is to be written. The basis behind this essay is that it allows students to express their ideas clearly and concisely, so the reader can understand them. This kind of writing is practiced so that in real essays the student may produce, and also other expressions of writing, the student may not only be understood, but gain ethos because of the intelligence they are perceived to have. Vernacular language and unclear structure wouldn’t cut it. An interesting question is, what if the student has strength in expressing themselves a different way, but not in writing? While there are many other ways one can express oneself, writing has been a powerful means of communication in our culture and it is expected that we communicate with it with at least a base knowledge of the structure and style expected of us.

As for other means of communication, the possibilities are endless. The way we dress, our posture, or modify our bodies is a means of communication, as well as the body language and of course, human speech. A piece of artwork may be considered a form of communication, depending on how it is perceived by the viewer. But in terms of inscribing meaning on the actual body, that is the realm of body modification. More normative forms of body modification such as painting one’s nails or doing one’s hair may express an attempt at beauty and cleanliness, especially if one does it well. It may indicate an attempt to fit in, attract a mate, or impress. Each act and how one does it asserts something slightly different, and it would be exhausting to cover them all. More extreme and non-normative forms of body modification may express rebellion and nonconformity.

Another thing to think about is the principle of authorship, both in contexts of formal writing and the body. It is the idea of some that one may assert authorship over one’s body by modifying it to their specifications; specifically against the normative traditions we have been groomed for. This goes for formal writing as well. One follows a writing formula dictated by social standards and thought of as the best, just like normative bodies are thought of as the best by society. Greater authorship over a piece may be gained by breaking out of the traditional writing format, just as body modification grants greater authorship over one’s body. The two aren’t exactly the same, but hold many similarities that have been discussed. In terms of limits, there are limits to what both can express, even when one breaks out of the traditional format, because it is less of how it is expressed, but how it shall be perceived. This perception enforces social traditions and guards against limitless expression.

Prompt 5

The two sources dealing with body modification, the National Geographic body modification gallery and the story on National Public Radio, approach this form of expression in two very different ways. The National Geographic seems to preserve the exoticism of this art by including several examples of body modification from foreign countries, tying their reasons of modifying them selves to religious, spiritual, and cultural practices. Even the two examples of modern primitivism that were shown highlighted the highly spiritual reasoning for their practices. None of their examples displayed tattoos that were merely for decoration, or done under more casual circumstances, as the mainstream tattoo is today. Another thing I found interesting about the pictorial was that none of the subjects were ever identified with names; they all remained only as people in places and cultures, with no individuality of specific people. I believe this was a technique National Geographic used to preserve the exoticism they were arguing of body modification.

The story ran on National Public Radio had a very different treatment of body modification; instead of arguing it was still an exotic practice, as National Geographic did in it’s pictorial gallery, the radio program argued that it was becoming more mainstream. They used one example of a real person, James O’Conner, who seemed like a pretty typical guy. The use of the typical individual enforces the mainstream argument, as well as the job he had, which was not only in a very professional field, but a typical one as well. Supporting with statistics and the interview with O’Conner, they argue that body modification is becoming less and less exotic.

As far as my opinion, I believe that body modification is trending towards the mainstream. Through my experience, I have seen many people who have undergone body modification that still are ‘typical’ people, not deviant bodies that want to be seen. With the increase in those kind of people, body modification shall soon be a much more accepted practice in our society.

Prompt 4

In this day and age, where most people agree that the models one sees on television and magazines aren't examples of real or normal people, Dove has done a curious thing. Amidst this environment, they have taken advantage of people's want for self-esteem and acceptance and used it in their advertising campaign. It is important to notice this, because if one fails to do so, they might miss the clever things Dove is doing to sell their products, and not necessarily do what they're suggesting they are.

Taking the example of a print ad, with a very freckled young woman gazing contentedly into the lens of the camera. We are given two options to the side of her face, with small check boxes next to them, indicating a selection. The top option says, 'ugly spots?' while the bottom contrasts with 'beauty spots?' Even smaller words below say, 'Does beauty mean looking like everyone else?' This particular ad is giving only a small amount of options. I personally would call the spots on this woman's body 'freckles'; I believe few people would chose the word 'ugly spots' because this woman is not ugly, nor do the spots on her body make her so. But beauty spots is going a bit far. The selection is not true to form. There are not only two extremes of people, however, Dove is suggesting there are only two choices. Also, the small writing below suggests that if we say 'no', we agree this woman is beautiful. I admit beauty can have variety, but again, I feel like I am forced into two answers. Even so, this kind of ad gives Dove ethos. It is standing up for freckles, and that everyone can be beautiful. But not...everyone. It's interesting to see who they left out in their campaign. Even though this woman has freckles, she is still 'beautiful' besides them. It is interesting to consider that even though Dove is gaining support of their campaign, they aren't using non-beautiful people to participate in it because they realize not many people would enjoy looking at them and it would not associate well with the products they are trying to sell.

Speaking of those products, I also looked over one of the videos released by Dove entitled 'Pro-Age'. This video featured attractive late forties women sitting tastefully nude and smiling, words after them, 'Too old to be in an anti-aging ad'. Thereafter they say something along the lines of, 'this isn't anti-age, this is pro-age' and then a speaker introduces the products along with the narration 'beauty has no age limit'. Well, if it doesn't, why didn't you show us eighty, or ninety year olds? Clearly beauty does have an age limit, or I'm certain Dove would have paraded them in front of us to prove this point. But again, it was only late-forties women. The close-ups on their body weren't even focused on their wrinkles, but rather tight, youthful-looking skin. It's simply the ethos they're using, to make them seem like a good company working for the aging woman, on her side. Also interesting is that even though they label their products as pro-age, they are still anti-aging products. The natural processes of aging are slowed through their use. If Dove came out with a product that would wrinkle one's skin, that, I accept, may be labeled pro-age without any eyebrow quirks from me. Until then, I applaud their efforts to make a unique campaign that makes women feel good, however, I still believe their main focus is to make money, and thus they do things that defeat their own message quite blatantly.

sl_rush_gatherer_arikara_edward_curtis_a2zcds

sl_rush_gatherer_arikara_edward_curtis_a2zcds
Originally uploaded by jilliansayre

“Rush Gatherer” by photographer Edward Curtis depicts a female of the Arikara tribe gathering rushes. However, the image may potentially say much more. Through analysis using visual rhetoric, one can find many arguments that this image supports and gain further meaning about the piece as a whole.

This photograph depicts a woman looking out at the camera, but with downcast eyes. This may indicate several things. Her downcast eyes coupled with her neutral mouth produce a somber expression; perhaps she is feeling shy, or unhappy. Her expression generally conveys negativity through the position of her eyebrows and her eyes. This may argue that she is shy towards the person taking the photograph or the camera itself. It also may support the argument that she is feeling emotionally distressed. Through this argument, one could try to infer why the woman is upset. It could be because she is working, or perhaps she is upset over whites invading the native lands and causing all sorts of destruction in their path. I believe that analysis would be going too far with the scant evidence provided; however, I do believe that the viewer may gain this impression and thus it is important to think about.

It is also helpful to point out her age in one’s assessment of this woman’s emotional state. She seems like an older woman, as evinced by the visible veins on her hands, as well as the wrinkles on her forehead and around her eyes, and on her cheeks. The wrinkle patterns, especially the ones around her eyes and mouth, may contribute to the feeling that this woman is upset. Her eyes seem droopy, her mouth seems to be frowning. It is important to consider, however, this may simply be aspects of her age, and not her emotional state.

It is also interesting to note, as it has been indicated that she is an aged woman, that she is working. One can see this through the large bushel of rushes that she has gathered in her arms. There are also many rushes in the background, indicating the vast amount of work she may be required to perform. The visible veins in her hand perhaps indicate that she is gripping tightly on the bushel. Even with that, however, she doesn’t seem to be exerting herself too much, as she has obviously paused to pose for a photograph. She is remaining still, and, while not directly looking at the camera, seems to have stopped momentarily. With this argument, one can conclude while she is not doing too heavy work, it is manual labor that is being performed by an aged woman. One also could consider that the work that she has performed over the years has made her to look aged, although that may be a precarious argument to take granted the small amount of evidence. In any case, this may argue the tribe that she is in, or even the entire culture, obligates even old women to work.

A final point to be made is the state of dress of the woman. She is fully clothed; not exposed like many other Native American tribeswomen. One may gather that maybe she is from a ‘purer’ or less sexually deviant tribe, who disallows nudity based on decency, however, the text at the bottom of the photograph may give a clearer answer. It says ‘Arikara’ in the lower left corner, next to the title of the photograph. This indicates what tribe the woman is in. The Arikara people were centralized more in the northern part of what is now the United States, where the climate is colder. Thus, one can infer that this woman is wearing full dress simply because the climate lends itself to that state of dress.

Through analysis of these various aspects of this image, one can gain a greater perspective on this photograph, and become more aware of it’s argumentative qualities.

Prompt 3

The 1840 painting by Edward Hicks, “Penn’s Treaty with the Indians” and the painting of nearly 70 years earlier, painted by Benjamin West and entitled “Treaty of Penn with Indians” are remarkably similar pieces of artworks. There is no doubt that Edward Hicks, an American limner painter, copied the image crafted by West almost directly, only flipping the image and changing minute details. The styles of the two paintings are remarkably different, and it could be the case that Hicks was attempting to apply his own folksy style to the more ‘academic’ or perhaps romantic looking West piece (It is interesting to note, however, neither of these men received formal training in art for most of their lives). As a Studio Art major, I personally believe that while West might have originally had an argument for the piece, one can only infer and use one’s own judgment to decide what this argument was. In fact, I believe that it is even possible to apply meanings to a piece that the artist did not intend at all. This does not make the arguments less valid, as long as it is noted that the artist’s intentions or arguments may have been completely different than what the viewer infers from it, and that the viewer most definitely interprets a piece depending upon their own filter, values, and environment. Thus, drawing arguments from pieces, especially ones of a different time period than which the viewer lives, is a precarious business and it is probably not a good idea to say the artist of any piece felt any particular way. I personally believe that one can, however, draw vague ideas out of a piece, and make educated guesses about what the artist was probably trying to express when he or she made the piece, especially if we have other evidence such as the time period in which the artist lived, other pieces created by the artist, or writings by the artist or other primary source. I suppose if I were to generalize my point here, I would say that think visual rhetoric is not so reliable as written rhetoric, as visual art is generally more open to interpretation than writing (though written rhetoric can also be a bit hazy, if we consider different things like different translations of language or vague meanings of words).

Well, the point of this prompt was to explain the arguments of these two pieces, and I don't believe I have done that up to this point. However, I felt like I needed to make a distinction between the artists and the art that they made. Sometimes, artists don't make pieces with arguments in mind, consciously at least; arguments are applied to their pieces later by viewers. We talked a lot in class about these pieces as well, so I figured I'd say something different. Also, helpful to note neither of these artists saw the actual event they're depicting. Onto the analysis.

Left to right bias: Does it indicate importance, or establishment? By putting the natives or white men on either side, it may change how an individual interprets the piece. Either way, the natives and the white men are separate. This may indicate them being separate entities, not -too- good friends, just different parties partaking in this contract. Focal point: I believe it is kneeling vest man and sitting Indian across from him in both paintings. I don't think this indicates much, but it may be that this treaty is taking a while so they wanted to sit down. Maybe they're getting more comfortable with each other. It would different if every one was standing up. More guarded. The artists may have made this decision of focal point consciously, maybe not. The tree provides a frame for the piece and the sky/sea region provides open space so the eye can rest. The native with the baby is in the light in the West painting; while she is in darkness in the Hicks. I believe this may be interpreted to make the natives seem more personal and friendly (also in closeness to viewer) while the Hicks, they look more distant, mysterious. I emphasize again I don't believe Hicks intended this, West may have just been a little more talented in portraying light.

I could go on for ages about different things I see in these two paintings, but I feel like those major points are sufficient.