The Image and The Message - Discuss!

[Twisted Minstrel]

Following up on Ruth's "nudge nudge" suggestion over on the TATU thread, I'm giving this a little go...



In discussing the merits (or total lack thereof) of a duo like TATU, the questions arise:



1. What do we relate to more - the image of something or the idea?

2. If the image is so important - does it matter if the intent behind it is potentially harmful? (i.e.: a soldier in combat as an 'image' of bravery)

3. If the idea is more important - how do you overcome a powerful image with a bad idea supporting it?



I don't wish to extrapolate further on TATU itself (there's another thread for that) - but the positive and negatives of imagery in our society. It is arguable that we are a society (and by this I mean Western/American/European culture) that is ruled by images and icons. Whether television, film, magazine or billboard ad, imagery is arguably the most compelling of all forms of communication. Yet when does the communication break down to become a form of mass suggestion?



Who are the role models these days - and do we need them? I'll argue that we don't; no matter how attractive the image, no matter how powerful - it's only an image and you may never know what's behind it. If you want a hero, you have to be the hero yourself. Which brings up another question - do we - as consumers, not as advertisers or controllers of the dissemination of information - ever really decide what we want to see? Do we really have any choice?



This breaks down in different ways but ultimately it plays out as entertainment vs. education - what do we value more? Is the 'image' of Willow and Tara as a couple so compelling and important that we'll ignore it's complete lack of development, and it's final conclusion as plot device gone rotten? Is the image of Madonna kissing another girl really expanding anyone's horizons of sexuality? These are entertaining options, yes - but do they actually take us anywhere?



What do you think?





Piper

http://www.geocities.com/dijeratti/index.html

[3peanuts]

Great thread! I was beginning to feel the need of something like this, thank you



And now the scenario thing from the TATU thread: two young cute (I'm not able to imagine them not cute) lesbians are passionately kissing in the restroom of a high school somewhere in the world. How should they react if someone pointed at them and said "Oh like the fake russian lesbians TaTu!"?



I don't like the possibility that lesbianism could be taken as a "sexy-game", this just increases the bad, sexist tradition about women, and lesbians sexuality. I really don't like to see my sexuality represented as a game for consumers.

On the other hand I must admit that everything works to create a sort of number of images for teens to identificate in. In Utopia we'd be able to say "No, wrong image", "Yes good image, go with it baby". But we do not live in Utopia, and still I'm convinced we should be working for the dismissal of all stereotypes.



That's just me, btw.

"Cunning linguist" GG

Keynes was right

[Twisted Minstrel]

Since about the early 80s with films like The Hunger showing Catherine Deneuve seducing Susan Sarandon, with goth/modern imagery (directed by a man, no less - Mr. Top Gun himself Tony Scott), and later with Madonna toying with sexual imagery in her videos, right up to more 'naturalistic' depictions of lesbianism like Willow and Tara, there's been a glamorous fascination with girls who like girls. The image is largely steered toward a male audience who find the fantasy aspect arousing while ignoring the fact that *ahem* most of us don't look like Catherine Deneuve or Susan Sarandon.



It's only meant to be taken as entertainment, but the image is so strong and the only representation (on a large scale) of other sexuality that we have, that it negates the reality it isn't even trying to imitate. If they really understood just how similar being gay is to being straight, they wouldn't try to dress it up so much.



But that's another point too - glamor. Movies and television are about nothing if not a touch of glamor. The actor you might see with a bloody nose on the tube one day will be wearing a $5,000 tux on a televised awards show the next day. You have to exagerate life at every turn and that's all entertainment really is - life to an almost impossible degree.



So if all you see is an exagerration of the truth - what are you likely to find attractive? Hannibal Lector said it best - "we covet what we see everyday." Raise your hand if you ever realized you either broke off good relationships or avoided them because you kept holding out for someone more attractive? Hoping your 'ideal' would come along?



The image rules - until we decide to stop watching. But who wants to do that?