As if California doesn't have enough problems on its hands, here's another one. This is a great piece on the two clashing cultures alive and well in the state, and what one group would like to do to fix the clash. The writing is tight, and the topic is well flushed out even in a short piece. What are your thoughts on the writing and the topic?
Another great piece but in the form of video story-telling. It's a topic near and dear to my heart because, well, this was what my dad did for quite some time: he was a photo retoucher. What do you think about the author's final challenge to the media? What do you think of this form of opinion "writing"?
16 comments:
The idea of California splitting into two different territories is ludicrous. Mr. Rogers seems to have no idea of how an economy works. The basic principal of a capitalist economy is that the consumer drives the product. Therefore, if the consumer wants something different then the producers comply and change their products. Without consumers, there would BE no industry. Without the customers that Mr. Rogers says "...just don’t know what it takes to get food on their table", Mr. Rogers would be out of a job and unable to put food on his own table, let alone criticize the consumers that provide him with a living. I think he needs to rethink his ideas and read an economy book, and then try and argue for California to split. He won't be able to.
I also think this is a ridiculous idea that deserves no merit of any sort. I am disgusted by Mr. Roger’s attempts to run away from the issues facing the state and all individuals by calling for such drastic measures. As a huge supporter of the Prop 2 campaign, I am further appalled by the fact that he is trying to escape the call for humane treatment of animals by going to such great lengths as to create a new state.
Although I can appreciate the vast difference among different regions of California as I have commented on this phenomenon many times during our California road trips, creating new states is not an option when it comes to facing the problems that are hurting California's unity. The people that make up the "red-blue" divide in California must come together to compromise and forget the idea of escaping issues by essentially leaving California! Just as it is not an option to find a new family when a problem arises, disenchanted farmers of Central California who are upset at finally being called out on their disgusting mistreatment of animals should find better ways to spend their savings than to fund a cop out from the reality of the world that will end up nowhere.
About the writing in the first piece...
I really noticed the vocabulary used. Though I obviously have no way of knowing how Mr. Rogers speaks, the words used to describe his situation (not in quotes) seem to fit with what I perceive to be his personality through his opinion and his photograph. Words like "consternation" and phrases like "the last straw" make the feeling of this very short piece a bit more tangible. I also love the kicker. It has so much character and it fits well with the piece as a whole.
Like Mr. Rogers (not the one from from PBS, I guess...) I've often thought about how nice it would be if California, or the US were split into its right- and left-wing constituents. After all, California is HUGE and diverse. Yet, I think this is a case where we should embrace our political diversity, not eliminate it. Without a balance between liberal and conservative ideas, California would probably be so radical that it would be at war with everyone else.
If farmers have a problem with Californians, they should reach out to consumers and try to change policy, not try to secede! Ultimately, they'll still be feeding the same people who "don't understand what it's like" in "real" California.
Back again... writing about the airbrushing video.
We're all media-aware MA students, so on some level we know how to critique media and how artificial most fashion photos are.
As someone who's pretty handy with Photoshop, my personal reaction to pieces that "expose" digital makeovers is "so what?" or "whoa, that's cool, where can I get that plugin?"
But with the exception of Tiras most people don't think about it that way. They see fashion photos and confuse illustrations for photojournalism. There's a place for both, but part of the ethos of journalism is that they should never be confused. So, I fully agree with the author that there needs to be more public consciousness about edited images. Whether it will just be a matter of labelling those pictures as photo illustrations or whether it'll require years and a whole social movement, or whether it's just the way it is I can't say. But as long as people are still asking friends to remove their birthmarks in a portrait and telling them to delete unattractive photos, I doubt that there will be any serious change in the way people idolize so many impossible models.
To comment a bit on the technique of the video, I thought it was good – the visual topic certainly lent itself to a video format – but it still seemed kind of sloppy. The music was choppy, the interviews were awkward, and most of the footage was pretty uninspiring. It wasn't bad enough to make me uninterested, but I can't say it helped.
I think something more like this is infinitely more powerful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcFlxSlOKNI
On the first article...
I found this fascinating! I had no idea there had been so many secessionist movements in California! I really appreciate how the author took this piece of seemingly trivial news (it easily could have just become "Farmers angry about Prop. 2") and provided the history of a growing social rift and a keen spotlight on what might be called California's cultural disparity. While Michael is right, that consumers drive the economy, this article presented the issue at hand as much more than an economic quibble. I read it as being about representation in government and how California's majority would, in many other parts of the nation, be a minority. For being a story about farmers, I found it incredibly thought-provoking, insightful, and rewarding to read.
I also agree that splitting California into two different territories is a crazy idea. The fact that the state is so diverse and so big is what makes it such a unique state. However, I can understand where Mr. Rogers is coming from. The so called "hollywood" type do not necessarily pay attention to what is going on in the central valley. This could be due to the go-go-go mentality that many people who live on the coast have. Therefore, it is understandable that Mr. Rogers would like more people to be aware of their hard work and effort because they are the producers and the consumers should recognize that.However, I am not sure how splitting the state would benefit them.
I had no idea that the topic of slitting California has come up so much over the years. Therefore, it shows that it may be a topic that will continue to come up in the future.
Wow! That article on retouching was really powerful. Even though I am aware of the retouching of nearly all celeb / model / hollywood photos, it is still interesting to see when it is discussed in such a direct way. I find myself frequently looking at fashion spreads and losing myself in the purported perfection, forgetting about all of the retouching that has occurred. It is sometimes overwhelming and superficial, yet can also be an art if done well. I am conflicted on the idea of having to disclose every photo that has been altered. There are so many ways in which one can change or enhance an image: contrast, blur, brightness, color saturation, hues, red eyes, to name only a few of the obvious one - and some seem unnecessary to be called out.
I myself have retouched many images in photoshop - whether to make them more "attractive," to delete a scratch or strange spot, or even to merge images. I am definitely one to create "pictures" of things that never happened - just for fun (yes, sitting in front of a computer screen compositing images is great fun for me!).
I love that most people think that California is just one big state of liberals when clearly there is a huge population of people who do not agree with the average Bay Area resident. I think the idea of splitting California into two or three sections is a terrible one because if we split the agriculture off from the more urban areas there will be a more intense divide between the two. I agree with the idea that the farmers and consumers need to sit down at a table and talk. It doesn't make sense for farmers to produce things that consumers do not want or raise crops and livestock in a way that consumers disagree with because they will just lose money. I'm sure there are a lot of people in urban areas who have no idea "what goes into getting food to the table" but there are some people who are aware so maybe the farmers should give them a bit more credit. I think people in urban areas should also give farmers a little more credit -- they are providing not only food but they make up the majority of California's massive economy. The only thing that shouldn't get credit is Mr. Roger's plan to split California by using boundaries only according to farms and where a conservative population might be... as Michael said it's ludicrous and I think it would be a disaster.
p.s I agree with Anjuli about the kicker -- what a great quote and end.
I also watched the video opinion piece and I love her dare. As someone who reads magazines I am constantly trying to remind myself that every woman in them has been shaped and smoothed out to look more perfect. What's most sad to me is that even magazines like "Shape" which is all about women's health, being fit, getting in shape through healthy methods etc. is retouching their models and their athletes as well. It's be interesting to see women's reactions to a cover or a spread that was untouched because unfortunately I have to wonder if instead of saying "wow, how great, she is beautiful and this is actually her" if women would pick out her flaws. It seems that we have been so trained to look at women who are perfect that it creates the culture of both insecurity and cruelty on the part of women. It's as though we have become so accustomed to the idea that there is a perfect woman out there, that that look can be achieved that anything less should be criticized. So it seems consumers of magazines are both a product of and the driver of retouching images. But I still hope one magazine has the guts to publish an issue with no retouched images.
A while ago, when I first heard that there was another proposed bill to split California, I assumed that it was to split the state into "North" and "South" sections. After all, people from the northern and southern parts of California often act very differently. However, when I read the article and realized that the bill was designed to split California into interior and coastal states, it made a sort of twisted sense to me.
Like Michael and Emily, I think that this idea is extremely absurd and that it is no way to solve California's problems. However, the two regions are culturally different, not the least of which has to do with their political views, or, as Mr. Starr says, the "red-blue divide." This is not unique to California though, so Rogers' idea still does not hold much water.
I think the article does a good job of capturing both sides of the argument. By staying unbiased, the article is able to maintain its credibility.
I think California should split into two different territories because Nor Cal is just so much better than So Cal(even though im going to college in So Cal).
But in all seriousness, I would agree with michael in saying mr. Rogers is pretty dumb about the whole economics part of the farms. The city "folk" like most of us are, are the money makers for these farmers and the ones that invest in what they are growing. So if you don't want us to buy your stuff, then fine I won't, and I will watch you and your farm crumble to the ground....pun intended?
I watched the segment "Sex, Lies and Photoshop" on photo retouching. I liked the topic, and am glad it was explored through the visual format.
However, I agree with Ben on much of the content. The video and the audio were choppy, and the interviews were not powerful. The panning images of the advertisements and magazines were also sub-par. What the commentator said at the end was basically the entire substance of the piece, and I think it should have been spread out throughout the entire video more.
I did like the portions on the legislation going on in France, and felt there was a good amount of information presented on this aspect of the story. Some of the other parts of the video were missing comparable facts and data, but the general topics covered were interesting and key to the story.
Overall I felt that what the commentator had to say was valuable portion of the piece, which somewhat defeats the purpose of making a video. It was decent, but a piece on such a visual-based topic could have been executed much better.
I, like Sarah and Ben, was a little bit conflicted about the video piece on body image and recent legislation in France trying to expose the extent of the Photoshop work that these magazines used. When I saw the little "New York Times: Opinion" intro at the beginning of the video, I was gearing myself for a really provocative and loud Opinion piece that was going to come out with guns blazing. The video itself was the exact opposite: the narrator was timid and almost emotionless, the interviews were not compelling or deep, and the video itself did not seem of the highest quality. As much as I hate to say it, all of these aesthetic/auditory pieces to a video help influence the way I take in media and how influential it is to me. Isn't that ironic?
On the other hand, I think that content itself is very important. It is hard to remember sometimes that the images of perfect beauty that we see in magazines or on TV are actually so unattainable that not even the models that portray this image can live up to it (hence the use of Photoshop). I would love to see a magazine try and meet the dare of the narrator, or at least have the guts to give Photo Illustration credits to those who work with Photoshop on the images. Anything else would be false advertising or disingenuous journalism.
While i agree with pretty much everyone that the idea of splitting California up is crazy, I think Mr. Rogers does have decent point. People on the coast really don't have any idea of what it takes to put food on their tables. I think we tend to idealize things and if we are given the option of chickens being given more space or not of course we'll say let em roam free. But few people really think about what this means economically and if it will really help or if cheaper meat from other states or Mexico will just sell in California because they do not have to adapt. I think Mr Rogers is over reacting but that he has a valid point. I also really like trhe writing and the kicker.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS!
Splitting up California just because farmers don't feel like they're appreciated? Neither are factory workers, gardeners or construction workers, yet they still do their jobs. These people need to understand that this is the nature of the consumer-producer relationship. These people want representation in the senate, which they already have. We have a democratic system in place that grants representation according to population. If you don't like that system, too bad. What Mr. Rogers and all these other people need to understand is despite our differences in culture, profession, economic situation and whatnot, our diversity makes California what it is. A state full of urban folk and a state full of farmers would not work.
Post a Comment