A Folk in High Culture

High Culture- Art forms that require a great deal of capital to participate in.

Folk Culture- The art of ordinary people such as fairy tales, weaving, singing, and the use of
simple instruments.

2 contrasting ideas, 1 society. Which will win out? Which is better? Is one better? Is one worse? How do these to types of "culture" shape the society we live in?

These and many other questions were raised in my mass media and society class recently. We examined how high and folk culture affect the world that we live in. High culture requires a lot of money if you want to participate in it. Buying paintings, sculptures and other high culture items is something that many people want to participate in, but simply cannot support with their income. Interestingly enough, high culture was the only type of culture until the printing press was created. The printing press allowed folk art to actually get out and into the general public, for others to consume than just those who created it or lived close to people who performed it.

So what does all of this mean to us today? Does high culture and folk culture still exist? Yes, they do, and some believe they are causing problems in our society today. Some say that high culture has contributed to the increasing gap between rich and poor in the U.S. Others argue that folk culture or "popular culture" will erode civilization entirely because of it's massive spread. Those who create items of high culture status have to spend years upon years being taught and learning their trade. People in folk culture almost never receive any professional training for the art they create. So which one is better; Folk art that is original, or High culture art that is only considered high culture art if it meets the standards laid out by people in the high culture itself?

Personally, I don't think that there needs to be a choice between which is better. I believe that both have something to offer to the general public. I love things from both sections of culture. I love to listen to some good classical Bach, but at the same time I like to hear a self made artist named John Rueban who never had the training of such an esteemed artist. I love the art of many artists from the high school I graduated from, but at the same time I could spend hours upon hours inside a museum of art in any major city in the world looking and appreciating the art work of those who spent lifetimes in training to complete their works. I don't think it should be a question of credibility because of who had more training, but rather a question of the quality of the works.

It is undeniable that many artists of high culture create and have created masterpieces over the years. Furthermore, it is also true that many common folk create their artwork that in it's own way is phenomenal. I think we should have a respect for artwork from each of the two respective "categories" of culture. I will continue to consume media from both categories and even try to maintain a balance between this seemingly controversial issue. I think that everyone has something to contribute to the "world of art," and I will continue to respect that. Art will continue to be created by those who are considered trained and skilled, and by those who come out of the woodwork. I think all who create high quality works should be considered great at the things they do, and that the individual threads of high culture and popular culture should be melded into one single strand. Culture.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Celeb Originations

Just the other day in class, we spent most of the time talking about the originations of celebrities. Also, we discussed how we use celebrities in our lives, and how celebrities are constructed. The discussion was very insightful into a topic that many people don't even stop and take a minute to think about. We are more concerned with "consuming" the celebrities and the myths they lay before us, than actually learning and understanding about them as an actual media text that affects our lives.

The reading in our class packet, that this discussion was based off of, was very informative and provided many different "facts" and examples in the area of celebrities. When examining the origination of celebrities, a road of transformation was laid out. Going back to ironically stars themselves, that is where many "heroes" or celebrities of the past originated. From Orion to the Bull to many other objects in the sky, stories and tales were created for their origination, and how they actually lived out their lives in the sky. Another form of celebs from the past were all the Greek and Roman God's and Goddesses. From there, examples of actual Kings from the bible were given. The esteem that people held kings in back in the bible, has been compared to the way that many people today hold celebrities.

Inspiration, the embodiment of our best values, scapegoats; these are just a few of the roles that celebrities play in our world today. Constructed by a personal publicist, who in turn has a team of publicists, each celebrity has an image to uphold and project to the general viewing audience. Most are very successful at this, but some start good and end up down a road that reveals celebrities are also people. As discussed in class, Celebrities, referring to their image that is constructed, are NOT real people. Beneath that superficial layer, every celebrity is a person who has a life just like anyone else. A prime example of this is the one and only Britney Spears. Nuff said...

When examining how I use celebrities, I found that I use them in very similar ways. I blame them for causing others problems, and I also fall into the trap of thinking that others are more affected by celebrities than I am. Although I don't worship celebrities, I still have my favorite movie actors, singers, and even sports icons. I have fallen into the trap more than once of thinking that the image that I see of these people on T.V. is who they actually are. After this discussion from class, I have a greater understanding of celebrities and I think I can now more effectively consume the media text of "celebrity" without having all the seemingly realistic misconceptions surround my psyche.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Media Conglomerates Pt. 1

The recent debate in class about Media Conglomerates, has left me feeling somewhat like a hypocrite. I was on the side of the debate that was arguing that media conglomerates are good for our society as a whole. One of our arguments included the idea that conglomerates don't force people to be individuals, they produce thousands of options, from their billions of capital, for people to either accept or reject as their own. When the other group that was arguing against media conglomerates said that conglomerates keep people from letting their voice be heard, and that the little man is left out, we responded with the aspect of internet blogging as we see lived out in these very words. There are multiple outlets, provided by media conglomerates, where people can express their views on the internet for the whole world to see. There is only one problem with all of my groups "solid" arguments, I don't really agree with them, which is where the hypocrisy steps in.

While I will agree that media conglomerates do provide some of our modern day services that we seemingly "couldn't live without" (which makes me wonder how my parents are still living?), most things that conglomerates do in concept hurt rather than help our society as a whole. That is where my quibbles begin. As noted in a recent reading and class discussion, there are only 6 to 10 major companies that own the majority of every type of media that we partake of on a daily basis. That means, when you wake up and flip on the T.V. at breakfast, nearly every news broadcast will be reporting the "news", when really the reporters are just there to draw viewers in and make more money for the CEO in a starchy suit. I say "news" because, the "news" is brought to us, is almost ALWAYS biased in some way shape or form, especially in the area of political news. We hardly ever hear the whole story in any aspect of an election or any other political happening, we only hear or see what will draw viewers and thus draw more capital to the already Multi-Billion dollar franchise that owns the news we choose to watch. Let's take a little deeper look into this area of "selective media."

Recently, I was home with my girlfriend, and her father was talking about a plan that would literally change the United States of America as we know it FOREVER. There have been papers signed, by our president, in agreement to an elimination of the Canadian-American border AND more surprising the American-Mexican border. This would make a unified North American Union. So say bye bye to border patrol and hello to a Meximelt of Canadian Bacon and American Cheese! You may be pondering, why haven't I heard anything about this? I'll tell you why! The writers, and actors of and upon these laws don't want us to know. This is a quote from an article from a website called Accuracy in Media about the topic that you can find at http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5102_0_4_0_C/

"Major players are secretive and are trying to keep the media out of the loop. But that does not let the mainstream media off the hook. There is enough stonewalling, secrecy and there are plenty of telltale signs, so that any assignment editor whose curiosity is not aroused is probably in the wrong business."

Media Conglomerates Pt. 2

They don't want us to know, so media conglomerates keep it out of mainstream media, because that would be looked down upon, and possibly cause a loss of millions of dollars (God forbid!) This is a classic example of how we are presented with slanted news that doesn't really give us the big picture as to what really is happening in and around our lives.

One local news station's motto here in North East Ohio is "Honest, Fair, Everywhere." I'm really starting to second guess that, in every area of the media that we partake of. I think we, as students learning the truth about the media in a mass production and distribution not only have a reason to react to these things, we have an obligation. The media will only keep swallowing the society we live in, taking out the little independents to make more capital and further insure that the "real news" doesn't get out, UNLESS we decide to do something about it. We have to find a way to get out of this capitalistic hurricane that these conglomerates have us caught up in, and start to let the masses, which is the target audience of all media anyways, that something isn't right about the whole system.

In closing, I must say that I am a little disappointed to learn all of these things, even though I probably could have assumed that many of these things are true.I wish that more people understood the things that we are being presented with in this class, so that people could really make their own decisions for themselves instead of a news editor, who only wants to produce news that will please his superiors and bring in more capital, make those decisions for them. Our society has many more loop holes than we actually are lead to believe, and that has got to change if our Country is going to keep going as it has in the history books. I think its time we get back to the foundations of our capitalistic approach to economy, and start basing our country on the standards that our founding fathers solidified for us over 200 years ago.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Mid Semester Recap!

Smack dab in the middle of my second semester of College, specifically inside the context of my mass media class, I have many things to reflect upon. So far in this class, we have talked about many different topics and ideas that apply to the media we consume daily, how it affects us, and how we categorize it, along with many other things. Some of the things we have talked about include THE SEMIOTIC DOMAIN, signifier vs. signified, paradigmatic vs. sytagmatic, film shots, Semiotics, The Merchants of cool video, the Hollywood Simulation, and the list goes on. I am very happy with how the class has been going so far this semester.

Going into this class, I didn't really have any idea as to what I was getting myself into. I had heard from a guy on my floor that the class was really cool, and a lot of fun, but that was about all the more exaplaination I recieved. After the first couple of days in class, I had fallen in love with the ideas we were discussing, the ways we approached topics, and the many actual life ties that were uncovered. For me, taking an idea, and thinking in-depth about it and actually tying real-life experiences to it, is a very effective learning tool. I think that is why I love this class so much. With each idea or topic we discuss, we have real life connections that we make. Whether it be talking about slippage from first level significance to second level significance in the case of the yellow ribbon around a tree, or actually naming movies that fit into each of the "Mythical" Categories that we discussed, there is always a connection being made that is different from any learning I have ever done.

In mass media, we strive to get away from the traditional types of learning, or as I like to say regurgatation. In many classes, you study out of books, and from lecture notes, and the regurgatate the information on a test. In mass media, we make these real life connections that allows actual LEARNING to take place. Because of that, I am able to sit here, without looking at any notes, and name all of the different things that we have talked about thus far in the semester. I absolutly love that about Mass Media. I think that is how many if not all classes should be designed, as much as possible while still sticking to standards that are in place.

I am excited about what is still yet to come in the second half of the semester. New topics to be examined, and many more connections to be made. Also, I have to opportunity to investigate whether or not video games have an effect on teenagers, and if yes, how do they affect them. That is my topic for my final paper for this class, and I am very eager to begin in-depth research on the topic. Overall, I am very pleased with this class, I love everything about it, and I can't wait for what is in store for rest of the semester!

~DeLiRi0uS~

Dogme 95

The art of filmaking is a very diverse world, as seen from my last three posts. Although there are many films that follow the normal path of special efects, murders, and weaponry, there is another type of film that tries to abstain from these things. These are the Dogme 95 films. These films have a very strict set of rules set out for them to follow as seen on Wikipedia.com. Here is the list of basic rules and guidelines.

Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed, i.e., diagetic).
The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.)
The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
Optical work and filters are forbidden.
The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
Genre movies are not acceptable.
The final picture must be transferred to the Academy 35mm film, with an aspect ratio of 4:3, that is, not widescreen. (Originally, the requirement was that the film had to be filmed on Academy 35mm film, but the rule was relaxed to allow low-budget productions.)
The director must not be credited.

I think all of these things are very interesting, and that they contrast the normal way of film making very strikingly. Although, not many Dogme films have been made that follow every one of these rules to the T, many have included several of the guidlines in their processes.

In my opinion, I think these films are genius. Too often, we see the same story told over and over again on American theatre screens. Murder, guns, ext, fill the plots of almost every movie that is even interesting at all in this day. These Dogme moveis seek to stay away from those ideas, but still provide a movie experience that is interesting and will draw people in. Because of there off the beaten path approach, these films are not very sucessful like other mainstream movies are. But, I think in theory, these movies are an excellent escape from the over worked, fixed up movies we see in the theatres. I would like to see a Dogme film myself sometime to be able to draw some more conclusions on the differences between these films and other "Normal" Hollywood films.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Hollywood Simulation Pt. 1

About a week ago, I was thrust beyond the walls of a Malone College classroom, and into the room of a Hollywood producer. I was part of a team that owned a production company, that was looking to find a cheap actor/actress, a good script, and stay under budget. Although my transformation was short-lived ( held within the 50 minute class period) I gained some very good expeirences with the simulation. It was a very beneficial exercise.

The Hollywood simulation was a class "experiment" that took place last Wednesday in my Mass Media in Society class. There were several different roles that my classmates and I had the chance to "play." There were 4 actors, 4 agents, 5 writing teams (consisting of 2 writers each,) and 3 different theatre groups of producers (consisiting of 3 to 4 members each.) I was part of a group of four, and we were handed a few sheets with a bunch of information on it, that we had to try and make sense of. On the sheet, were all the costs of making a movie. Things like special effects costs, average actor/actress costs, general shooting costs, location of shooting costs, and every other cost under the sun that one could imagine for makign a movie. The other sheet revealed the information that would shape how we, as a producing group, would go about making our movie happen.

The sheet revealed that we had a budget of 40 million dollars to follow. We were a little dissapointed, because we knew that we were the underdog theatre group with the lowest budget, but we still sat down to strategize. On the sheet of costs, there were also a few sections of predicted income. If we had a certain group of writers, we would get X amount of money gaurenteed from DVD sales, or X amount of money from overseas. There was one group, the sci-fi writers, that would provide us with a boost of $20,000 in our budget because of the money we KNEW we would make if we had them on our team. After about 5 minutes, our overseer said time was up, and deliberations would start.

Hollywood Simulation Pt. 2

At this point, we needed at least one actor or actress, a writing group, and a title for our movie. Right out of the gates, we went to the sci-fi writers, willing to give then 5 million from our budget, that was cut to 20 million since general production costs were twenty million. We overheard another group offer them an upwards of 12 million for their script, and immediatly walked away; we simply couldn't afford that. Then, the dark dreamers writting group approached us with a deal of a script for 3 million, and we couldn't say no to the award winning writing group. From this point on, our main goal was to find at least one actor/actress. We seeked after the buffer dude, and offered him what was left of our budget, decideding to have no special effects or anythign in our movie, and we also offered him 15% of the profits. Our writers even decided to give us the script for nothing just so we could sign this big name actor to our show. He turned us down. Later, he turned out to be a flop, so we were glad that we didn't sign him.

Then, we found our match, Gloria Morningstar. She said she wanted 8 million, and we were shocked, since our last offer had been 20 million plus 15% of the profits. We signed her on immediatly. We now had a script, that called for one character, and an actress to fill that one role our script called for. After tallying everything up, we found out that we had a production cost of 47 million dollars. The thing that killed us was a news report that cause shooting in the U.S. to increase by several million dollars. We were not sure if we were allowed to be over budget, but we had a few things to back our overage decision. First, the overseer said that it was a free-for-all with no rules, so that would mean we could go over budget if we wanted to interpret it that way. Also, with our writers, the dark dreamers, we had a guarenteed 10 million dollars in DVD sales. So, we actually had a budget of 50 million, and would in that case have 3 million left over. We felt rather justified in our decisions, and decided to keep them as they were.

Although we had signed our actress, there was another uprising on the news wire. If and actor or actress was signed to more than one producing company, it would cost each company an additional 5 million dollars. That extra 5 million was definatly not something we could afford, so we had to do a little "manipulation" of our actress. Thankfully, she had not signed he contract, or the scratch piece of paper, so we were still able to make a last minute stipulation. If she signed elsewhere, we would lose 5 million, so therefor, she would take a pay cut as well. Gloria was looking to be launched into stardom, and she was already on our side, so she decided to not be wooed away to another theatre. We were very thankful of her decision.

Hollywood Simulation Pt. 3

One more interesting factor that took place througout this simulation, was an interation with the largest theatre group that had a budget of over 100 million dollars. First, a representative from the group approached us and asked us if we would want to sell our theatre to them, along with our script and actress. We had NO IDEA why in the world we would want to do that, when we were trying to build a name for ourselves, and not be outsourced by a larger company. We said no way, but the representative said the offer was still on the table. After several minutes had passed, the rep. returned and asked if we would want to sell our script and actress to them. We again declined, and kept our team united, as we had great hopes for our movie that was in the making. I guess, if we would have sold our actors and actresses for a price of say 40 million dollars, we would have a 60 million dollar budget, and could have signed other people, but we wanted to stick with our writers and actress, seeing how we had a common bond and dedication to sucess despite our low budget.

Finally, we had to choose a name for our film. The writing team had developed a story about a lone character based in a Jeruselam type setting, that had to uncover and solve a very mysterious mystery. After some deep thought, and right at the end of the time period to turn in our final contracts, the writers came up with the name: Elusive. The whole group thought the name was very good, and so everyone was pleased. Later, we found out that people would be voting on whether or not they would see our film based on the title alone. We were even more pleased in learning this, because we felt we had a very strong title for our hopefully successful film.

This entire process was very fun, interactive, and even insightful. I think it provided us with a fun day in Mass Media class, while accomplishing a goal that lay beneath that sheath of enjoyment. We had take on the roles of actual actors, agents, producers, and writers. We truly felt for 45 minutes that we were hitting it big in Hollywood, and trying to make the newest and best film. Although we knew that it was fake, and nothing was ever going to come of it, the simulation still provided us with an insight to what the process of filmaking might be like. Each individual had a different standpoint, and each had a different outcome depending on which role they had. I think that this simulation was very effective in taking us into the world of film making, and eve giving us a glimpse at what people go through everytime a new movie is made. This WAS the best day in Mass Media, as our teacher said it would be, and I am very happy that I had the opportunity to take part. We are still awaiting the results of the voting, but I have a good feeling that Elusive, will be at the top of the charts!

~DeLiRi0uS~

Music Genres

In a world diversified with many different media texts for ingestion, one would think that the diversification would stop there. But, it doesn't. Inside of each different text, there are tens, and even hundreds of different genres. Specifically inside the text of music, there are HUNDREDS of different genres. Here is my list that I came up with from my brain.

-Rock & Roll

-Pop

-R&B

-Rap

-Jazz

-Soul

-Contemporary

-Hip Hop

-Country

-Emo

-Screamo

-Alternative

-Classical

-"Boy Band"

This list is not at all comprhensive of the overall spectrum of musical genres. After doing a little bit of research, I found some interesting information about genres in music. I was shocked to find literally hundreds of different musical genres listed on Wikipedia's website. The list was so extensive that it was broken into 4 sections (A-F, etc...) Here is an example of the very first of the "A" Section" As you can see, there are 20 genres in the Aa-Ad section alone.

Aa-Ad
Aak - Korean court music
Aaroubi - evolved form of al-andalous classical music which comes from Algiers
Abaimajani
Abajeños - folk music of the Perépecha of Mexico
Aboriginal rock - rock and roll mixed with Australian aborigine music, began in 1980s
Abstract hip hop
Abwe
Acoustic Rock
Acoustic Techno Fusion
Acid croft - mixture of traditional Scottish music with house influences
Acid house - house music using simple tone generators with tempo-controlled resonant filters
Acid groove
Acid jazz - jazz mixed with soul, hip hop and funk
Acid rap
Acid rock
Acid techno
Adai-adai
Aduk-aduk
Adult contemporary
Anti-Serious Music

One would assume that with all of these genres out there, that there is no need for more genres to be created. It seems that there are enough genres to choose form that you could find something you like. But as time goes on, and hybridity takes course, new genres continue to emerge, and add to the already extensive list. I think that genres are a very important part of our "media culture," as they provide a common linking point for people to latch on to. As long as people have imaginations, this list of genres will keep growing, and I think that is the way a healthy media text should operate.

~DeLiRi0uS~

A Brand New Genre Pt. 1

As media consumers in our society, we are surrounded by many different groupings and gatherings of media. The main overall groups that many movies, types of music, and even television shows are divided into are called genres. In music, I can think of a few examples, such as punk, rock, emo, screamo, jazz, r&b, and the list goes on. These groupings provide an outline for artists to follow, and for consumers to go to if they like a specific type of music from any particular genre.
Although there are already many genres out there, I have come up of a brand new genre for a t.v. show using the concept of hybridity (or the combining of two or more genres to create a new genre.) The genres that I have put together are the genre of game shows, and the genre of sports television. The new t.v. show that will be based off of this genre will be called GameSports and will be unlike any other show that has ever aired on t.v.
On the show, four contestants will be randomly picked from an audience (a la The Price is Right) and will be seated inside of an actual NASCAR race car. Once inside the car, contestants will be connected to a virtual race course through a head set and goggles. The four drivers will race against each other, with the race being "broadcast" for the audience to watch. The drivers that finish will receive some nice prizes, like tickets to sporting events or sporting memorabilia. The driver that saw the checkered flag first will be taken to a locker room and will change into sporting type clothing. After this first "race" stage of the show is completed the show will have a commercial break, only with sporting, and other game show commercials.

A Brand New Genre Pt. 2

Once the show returns, the contestant will spin a giant wheel to choose which sporting activity they will have to accomplish. These tasks could range from swimming, to heads up poker, to hockey, to baseball. The contestant will be matched up against an actual professional from each of those individual sports, and if they can beat the pro, they will win the prize. Whatever sport the individual had to play, they will be rewarded accordingly. For example, if someone was matched up against poker phenom Doyle Brunson heads up, and they won, they would receive a huge trip to Vegas, with all the pickings they could imagine.
Throughout the show, several rounds of contestants will be sent through the NASCAR simulation, and then to the big wheel to be sent to a sport activity. In an average show, 4 to 7 contestants will be sent through the whole system. At the end of the show, there will be a "big prize time." In this part of the show, the top three fastest contestants, determined by their race times, will be taken and placed in front of a panel of 6 of the actual pros (a la Match Game) that were involved in the show for that airing. The contestants will then be read questions, and have buzzers to buzz in on (Jepordy.) The questions will be in the format of surveys taken from sports athletes throughout all the sports ( a la Family Feud.) The contestants will go through 2 separate questions, the first question they will answer by themselves, and the second, they must try and match an answer with one of the pros. Which ever contestant has the most points after those two questions will move on to the final round.
In the final round, the contestant will have to answer several sports questions, matched up against the "Schuab," the famous sports buff from ESPN. If the contestant beats the Schuab, they will be rewarded with crazy trips to sports around the U.S. and a V.I.P. pass to the next Olympics that occur. This show will draw many people, any one who has ever seen a sport before will be interested.
I think that this new genre will be very successful because so many people have seen or experienced at least one of the many sports that are out there. Also, the prizes will be so ridiculously cool, that many people will show up in the audience to even have a chance at a prize. This show would sweep the nation in a few short airings, and become one of the most genius shows to ever be aired on television ever. It would be the start of a brand new genre, that could virtually be appealing to all Americans across the Nation. This ultimate genre would set a standard, that many other game shows, and even sporting events would struggle to match up to.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Myths in Society

As I was thinking through past discussions during our mass media class, I was drawn to re-visit the topic of several of the Myths that our media follows. These myths include that I would like to address are the Coming of the Messiah, and the Possibility of Conspiracy. In the Myth of the Coming of the Messiah, there is always one person who can save an entire group or society. In the Possibility of Conspiracy, there is one person who knows a secret that a group of people are keeping, and the secret can cause harm to others. Thus the "hero" who finds out the secret can save the others from the bad things that could happen.

Just a few days ago I was watching the Movie called Walking Tall staring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as Chris Vaughn. The movie is about a guy who comes back home after getting hurt in the military, only to find that the mill his father (and he himself during summers) had worked at for many years was shut down. The new and biggest thing in town is a casino that is owned by the local bully Jay Hamilton. Throughout the course of the storyline, The Rock comes to find out about a secret drug ring that Hamilton is running out of his casino. *Here is where the secret of the group is known by the one who can save others from harm.*

With corruption all throughout the city, even in the local sheriff's department, The Rock has to take matters into his own hands. *Thus taking on the role of the Messiah saving his town from the widespread corruption and the drug ring.* Helping him along in this area was his election as the town's brand new Sheriff. Surviving a near death experience with Hamilton's groupies, and a shootout in the sheriff's office, The Rock is able to find where Hamilton was running the drugs out of; ironically it was in the mill that had been shut down because of the casino. In the end, all peace is restored to the small backwoods town, the mill is re-opened, and The Rock remains the good Sheriff.

I think it is amazing how these myths can be taken and twisted and morphed and re-told in so many different shapes and forms. This movie was able to take two of the myths and integrate them together to create a character that fills the roles of those myths to the T. These myths can serve as "transparent" mirrors. We can see these myths and look through them to see them acted out in characters in movies or dramas, but at the same time, the overall ideals and actions are reflected back onto our own lives. What I mean by this is these myths are lived out in each one of our lives in many facets and many ways. Even though the myth is turned and twisted and applied in so many different ways in movies, the underlying theme of the myth is always there.

I think that is why we enjoy to see these myths relived and re-shown in so many diverse styles. Everyone loves a good story, and everyone really loves to see a good story re-told in many new and interesting designs. These two myths and several others that were discussed in class are eternal and will always be told and re-told as long as film makers, and script writers have the unction to make new and complex plots. Myths are a great tool of our society, and I believe they will continue to be lived out and applied to our lives to our lives for a long time to come.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Maddenation

Thinking of playing a video game only brings one thought to my mind: Madden. Madden NFL is by far the most amazing video game I have ever played throughout my video gaming journey through life. My past experiences with video games themselves range all the way back to the origional game boy. Super Mario Bros. and the whole lot of origional old-school games were virtually the best thing in the world of gaming for a young grade schooler at the time. As time progressed, my experiences moved on to the Nintendo 64. Games like quarter back club 1999 adorned my tv screen as I moved through this stage of the journey.

After time, that 64 was morphed into a new and improved Xbox from Microsoft. This new platform of gaming opened many new doors, with new graphics, online gaming, and a slew of brand new and improved games. One of those games was Madden NFL Football, made by John Madden himself. This game was the game that any guy who liked football had been searching for, for several years. As time even progressed with the Xbox, Madden NFL football continued to grow and somehow become even cooler. Today we have Madden NFL Football 2007. It is by far the most amazing football game that I personally have ever played. I am ashamed to say that I really couldn't start to keep track of the amount of hours that I have spent playing the game, instead of doing something productive like studying.

I think it is interesting to actually step back and realize actually how much time I have spent playing a game that is so trivial. That is why I want to look more in depth at how video games can affect teenagers, and college aged kids. I want to know if there is actually an explanation. I am excited to take this topic and expand upon it for my final paper that I will be writing. I can't wait to see what I will find.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Semiotics: A Discussion Pt. 1

As I sat in class and learned about semiotics and the sort, I was reminded of several thoughts that I have had flowing through my cerebellum for many years. These are things that I have pondered and always wondered if there were answers to my questions. After learning some of the basics of semiotics, I can see where I might be able to have a starting point to find the answers to my questions, but by no means have a had a great revelation of genius in regards to any of my ponderments. I just hope to share a few of my thoughts here.

For several years, one of the most mind boggling questions I have boggled with in my head is this. If a child was taught from the begining that everything was the exact opposite of what everyone is taught, would it be wrong. What I mean is, if a child was taught that red was green and green was red, would the child be wrong if he saw a red rose and said if was green? Of course we must lay the assumption down that this little tot is not red-green color blind. Even deeper than just colors, what if a child was taught that a dog was a cat, and a cat was a dog? Would they be wrong if they called out for the family feline and a ginourmous Great Dane camp romping around the corner? These questions have intrigued me for many minutes, and even hours at some times.

At the base of Semiotics, we have the signifier, and the signified. Also we have the codes that shape and provide a mold for those "significances" to follow. Of course we could go deeper into syntagmatics, and paradigmatics, BUT for the purpose of this simply hypothetical blog, we will stick to the basics of signifiers, signifieds, and codes that they follow. The following is going to be a little abstract, but just stick with me, and hopefully I can help makes some sense of all of it at the end.

Let's name the child...Frankie should do the trick.... Frankie was walking down the sidewalk, on the way home from his 3rd grade endeavors for the day, and he saw a terrible spill that took place between a mailman and a youngster on a bike. Let's assume that Frankie just learned in his semioticly-morphed class, that men who carry mail to houses are called Presidents, and little tikes on bikes are called Bombers. After realizing that the spill wasn't nearly as bad as it looked, Frankie flees the scene of the action, and hurries home to report to his mommy what he just saw. Walking in the door Frankie frankly says to his mother " Hey Mom! Guess what I just Saw?... The president just ran into a bomber and it was terrible..(leaving out the important detail that everyone was fine). Following the rules of our code of understanding the mother would have a rather terrifying image in her head. She would see the president of the United States (from the signifying word PRESIDENT) running into a suicide bomber, and having a rather untimely and terrible death. She would be following every code and rule set out before every commonly schooled American of our day and time. Unfortunatly, Frankie's mother is unaware of his morphed view of the world.

Semiotics: A Discussion Pt. 2

Even though Frankie wasn't wrong by his own standards of education and understanding, he was easily wrong if we match him up against all the implied codes and rules that any normally schooled person would know. So I guess to answer my own question of whether or not a child would be wrong if he was taught a totally different system of learning, my answer would have to be yes, and no. In the first reading for this class, it talked about how an individual can't make up their own thoughts or understandings and expect that the world around them would understand. That is the main reason why I would say no, but the reason I would say yes is because in Frankie's head, it made perfect sense.

We digress, to another thought coming from my fantastical brain. In our language, we take the signifier of the word cat and have an image of a cat (signified) in our minds. Also we turn that image of the cat into the signifier and think about things like warmth and fuzziness. I have always wondered that if people with different languages still have the same types of images, even thought their words are so different. Let's take the Spanish version of cat for example. When a mother says to a child: Donde esta el gato? (Which means where is the cat), what does the child think of when he hears the word gato? Would he simple follow the same rules that we follow with just a different signifier since the signified is still the same object? Or would he have a totally different picture in his head when he hears or sees the word gato. Maybe it is as simple as seeing a different type of cat, such as when I hear cat I think of a black cat, and when the little Hispanic boy hears gato he thinks of a calico cat.
I have to believe that if there is a difference, it is deeper than just the relativity of the type of cat. I think that if there is a difference, it is because of the enormous gaps between our cultures. American culture has a face, or a set of codes and rules and implied meanings, that is totally different from every other culture around the globe. This would provide a reasonable answer to the difference between the two signifieds. Maybe words meaning the same the things and only look differently, doesn't have much of an effect upon the signified its self. I am truly not smart enough to figure that out, but by any means if anyone who reads this could shine some light on either of my subjects, I am more than open to thoughts.

These things I have shared make my brain hurt, but I find them to be very interesting thoughts. I am excited that I am able to finally have something to structure these thoughts around. Hopefully as I continue to learn more and more about Semiotics, I will have a greater understanding for these and other concepts that come my way. I hope you were able to make at least a little sense out of all my hypothetical mumbo-jumbo! Enjoy!

~DeLiRi0uS~

Life in the Midst of Media DeLiRiuM Pt. 1

First of all, I want to say welcome to my blog! Throughout my nineteen years of existence, I have been exposed to, and encouraged to participate in, many different types of media. Honestly I have never stopped to examine how many types of media I use one a semi-regular basis, or how those media have affected and shaped my life. Throughout this blog as a whole, and this post individually, I hope to explore the media, how it has affected me and will affect me in the future, and hope it impacts the world I live in.

As I stop and think about all the many different media sources in my life, there are quite a few, at least more than I thought there would be. From music, to television, movies, to theater, books to the internet, and from newspapers, magazines, and the list really does go on. Out of all these separate media indulgences, T.V. has by far been the most influential for me.

Ever since I was young I can remember watching Mr. Rodgers ( for supposed educational purposes), The Reading Rainbow ( I'll never forget Lamar), Saturday morning cartoons, and The Price is Right. These shows provided me with the entertainment that any youth of my age would enjoy. As time progressed my interests have matured in some areas, but stayed the same in others. Nowadays, the Price is Right still makes the list, but it shares my interests with sports television, including live games and the everyday episode of Sports Center) actions shows, such as 24, and reality television.

Thinking about even this shift in my television viewing preferences has shown me something about the media's ability to tailor my specific interests. Along with a shift in my viewing preferences, there has also been a shift in the way that I actually think about television itself. As a child, television was merely a supplement to my everyday activities of " linkin' loggin' ", food consumption, and childhood mishaps. Today, television is a source of information, entertainment, and advancement that I consciously indulge myself in. When I want to learn, I flip to the discovery channel, when I want to see our "great" Cleveland sports teams, Fox Sports Net, and when I want to hear some partisan news-speak, I can turn to any of the sensationalized stations that reside on my basic cable plan.

A Life in the Midst of Media DeLiRiuM Pt. 2

Although these outside recognitions have been made, I believe there is still a greater lesson, and realization beneath all of this seemingly obvious information. I believe, that my interests and beliefs in and about television, have been shape by the medium of the television itself. Growing up not only provided a stimulation of hormones but also a stimulation of curiosity that the television was offering to me without any hang-ups. As I made that shift between the Barney song, to "mature and violent and unrealistic" television, I think I followed the exact pattern that the media had intended for me, and many other teenagers of my generation to follow.

Realizing this opens many new thoughts about television as a media and entertainment source. I think it is important to think about what we ( for all my Christian brothers and sisters out there) take in through the television. Our eyes are the gateway to our thoughts, actions, and even the motivations of our hearts. We can say that it is just for fun, or we know it isn't real, but why not just find another way to glorify God, rather than wasting his precious time on a media trap that we all too easily fall into. I think it is time to make a stand for our selves, and choose to stop falling into that trap, and start falling into Jesus will for our lives.

Please don't for one minute believe that I am never going to watch another minute of television in my entire lifetime. That would be taking things to a definite extreme. I'm just thinking aloud here ( or in print I should say) and I just want you all to maybe think about this for your own lives. I don't think that all television in moderation is bad, and I don't think that most television in and of itself is bad, per say.

My main concern is that we as the livelihood of our families, churches and country, stop ourselves from following what everyone around us wants us to follow, and start following what the Lord has called us to. Even if someone isn't a Christian, I still think it is important to stop and take a new look on this subject of how easily television can shape and morph our thoughts and actions. Lets stop letting media so easily affect us, and start affecting the media in a way that can help us show others how to break out of the tunnel-visioned thought process that so many of us are knee deep in!

~DeLiRi0uS~

Test