Mister Brainwash.... uh... yeah...

Theirry Guetta aka Mister Brainwash, in my opinion, is a joke. I love his enthusiasm about the whole street art thing, but when he went to do a show, that love stopped.
     Many, if not all artists, have to go through some type of struggle, and all of them have to have some type of meaning behind their work. With Theirry, he just said, 'I'm gonna make art and do a show'. Though that's what Banksy told him to do, I think he took it too far. What Banksy meant was to do some street art. That's it. But the eccentric french man wanted to make street artists proud, so he skipped the phase where people get to know who he is and what his art stands for, he just massed produced art and put it in a show. A big show.
     Mister Brainwash says that his art is supposed to brainwash people. I don't think it does. I think it is an insult to all of those who take weeks, months and years to create something with the right message. He doesn't even make it himself! He hires others to do things together. A scene in the documentary that really shows this insult to art is when Theirry had to make a hundred posters for the first people to come to his art show. To make each poster 'unique' he lined up the posters, and was pushed around, while he sprayed paint everywhere. There was no thought to the picture. It's just an example of one guy, taken advantage of others by mass production.
     As I said, Theirry only comes up with the idea of what the art should look like. I think that many of his pieces are about celebrities and famous movie characters. He does try to put a message with his... art by substituting a somewhat fantasy appeal to the image. An example would be the image of a movie character (who is known to use guns) and substituting the real gun for a toy gun. That was a pretty interesting piece, but it gets a little boring when you do the same image over and over but in different colors. This use of color variation can be seen the picture of the spray can. Sure it looks nice, but I don't see anything else but a colorful can, and he uses this image over and over again.; Not in a Warhol way, but in a 'I don't know what color I should so I'm going to use them all' kind of way.
     Theirry's art show was also a bit of a mess too. It got to the point where there were so many pieces of art that it loses value. I think by making millions of paintings and such just to fill in the space, he really deminished the value of each independent piece. Even though he was able to sell his work for thousands, I don't believe that Theirry understood what Banksy wanted him to do. This was to go through the process of doing street art for the meaning and then see where it takes him. Though he did do some street art, he did not spread his name out. He just said that he was going straight to the top.
   At the end of the documentary, Banksy compared Mister Brainwash to Andy Warhol. It is an interesting comparison as he talks about how both men create the same image over and over again. The difference with Warhol is that he did it with the message of the impact of mass production in America. This was not the case with Mister Brainwash as his reasoning for mass producing art was , in my opinion, to just fill up space and sell to many people for a lot of money.

Waste Land Influence

     In Waste Land, artist Vik Muniz is creating art with the recyclable materials from the world's largest dump in Brazil. To do this, he asks the pickers of recyclables to help him. He took them to a studio, away from their lives at the dump, and showed them an alternative lifestyle.

Vik: Vik knew that he had to be careful when taking the workers away from their lives because it was so different from what they grew up with. He also believed that even though they were happy with their situation, like Valter, Irma and Tiao, he needed to mess with their minds a bit. This way, they can better themselves. 

Vik's Wife: She doesn't want Vik to mess with their heads because she is concerned with what would happen after the project. How would the workers cope, knowing that there is much more out there and they are working at a dump?

     My opinion: I think that what Vik did was good. I believe that people need to learn about what goes on in the world so they don't feel like they have to stay where they are. Not that all of the workers hated being there, but you could see that there were some out there who felt like they wanted to do something more with their lives. I felt that it was the women who worked as pickers wanted to do something else, but they couldn't. Many said that because of their situation, it was either do this, or sell drugs and go into prostitution.
     I think that in the end, the experience did work out well for the workers. It gave the workers a way to tell their story, like Magna and Isis. They both fell on hard time, and had a hard life, and I think that by talking to the camera, they received a sort of therapeutic release. This projects has also changed many of the workers lives. At the end of the documentary, it tells the audience about how each of the workers are doing now. Zumbi had enough money to build the library that he's been wanting for the ACAMJG, Suelem  has quit her job, got married and, baught a house and has a boy and Magna now works at a pharmacy.
     As you can see, Vik coming to the dump and talking to the workers was really good for them. It seems that everybody is now happy with their lives and it was all because of Vik's influence. 

Commit crimes and fleas

People tend to remember things when there is some type of emotion attached to it. The strongest one if fear. Many advertisers know this and use it in order to get their product noticed.

Saatchi and Saatchi Singapore-CSI Ad
 What would you do if you were at the scene of a crime? Seeing  yellow tape surrounding a bloody object would freak anybody out, but then you realize that the tape says CSI at 9.

As you can see, this can get a lot of attention. For one, it's in a good location. by incorporating the airport lockers into the ad, it mixes with the viewers perception of reality and advertisement. It is also a bit radical as there is blood dripping down the lockers and the police tape surrounding it. At first, one could believe that it's a legitimate crime scene, but it's not. This could stir up some conversation like "Wow I thought that was real. Did you?" This then spreads by word of mouth when people say "When I was at the airport I saw this crazy ad..."  

Frontline- Get them off your Dog
People are everywhere, so why not take advantage of that? The creators of a Frontline flea ad did.

And the thing is that it takes no space what so ever. It's and image on the ground and because it's such a big image, it can only be fully appreciated at a higher viewing point. By putting it at a place with high foot traffic, the chances that the ad works are higher. The effectiveness of the ad is determined on how many people 'participate' in the ad.

Milk and Shoes

Got Milk?: Got milk was made by Goodby Silverstein & Partners in 1993 to increase dairy sales. Somebody suggested Got Milk? and though it was criticized for not being grammatically correct, it was short and to the point. This campaign had a huge impact on the American consumer since about 90% of Americans can recognize the ad and say what the product is. This advertisement campaign has brought on many parodies, and many of these parodies, such as Got Democracy? or Got Pus? have become as popular as the original campaign.

Just Do It: Nike had hired Wieden & Kennedy to create a slogan for their company. At that time, a serial killer named Gary Gilmore had been caught and his final words to the firing squad were 'just do it'. Wieden thought that Gilmore's final words were perfect for Nike. Just Do It gives off the feeling that Nike is strong and does not hesitate to go for it. This slogan really affected many people as it gave them the incentive to just do it and to stop putting things off and just finish it.

BBDO

Company Name: BBDO


History: BBDO started in 1891 with George Batten's Batten Company and, through a merger in 1928 with BDO, the George Batten's Batten Company became BBDO. Since then, it has been credited to advertising companies such as Hammermill Paper Co. in 1912, to Burger King in 1973 ("Have It your Way") and BBDO  was the company who were shooting  Michael Jacksons  Pepsi commercial (where he caught on fire). BBDO has been receiving many awards recently. 


Company Mission: BBDO wants to touch the consumer and advertise the brand.


Location: Headquarters are located in New York USA.

"Focus Group" Snickers Commercial

a. This commercial takes place in a conference room in 2011.
b. There are three main subjects in the commercial. There is the woman who is asking the group which person they liked best. There are the sharks, not sure how cause they live in the ocean, but it's a commercial so it doesn't need to make sense. Lastly, there is the guy who's is to be eaten. I don't believe that he knew what he was getting into, he just wanted some candy.
c. There is the Snickers itself, which is the product that is being advertised. 
d. The story is that Snickers is conducting an unconventional group study. It is to see if the sharks preferred the girl who ate a peanut butter cup or the guy who ate the peanut butter Snickers. This was to show the audience that the new Snickers taste better than peanut butter cups. 
e. Made in the year 2011
f. As a person who loves chocolate I liked the commercial. I wanted to be in a focus group and taste the peanut butter Snickers. (Not by eating a human)
g. This seems like it can be enjoyed by anybody it just depends on whether or not they like candy.
h. I think that the advertisers are trying to attract a wider group of people because of their use of comedy. Obviously they are not trying to focus on sharks (that would just be silly).  
i. When I looked back at the commercial,  I noticed that all of the humans were white and that it seemed like males were more prominent. Knowing how advertisers work, this might have been on purpose, but I would like to think that the producers chose sharks to prevent discrimination against a certain gender (because you can't see the difference between make and female sharks) or a certain race (because sharks don't have a race). I didn't see anything that showed any type of class, ethnicity, religion, class or sexuality.    
j. The text reflects the product. It kind of acts as a recommendation; if you like this then you'll like this.  
k. The commercial is showing the product, not a lifestyle. Snickers is supposed to be eaten; it does not change a persons personality or way of living. I think that if the sharks were human, it would have said something like, 'these people like Snickers, you should too'.
l. I liked this commercial because I enjoy Snickers and talking animals. I was persuaded to buy it and it tasted wonderful.    

This Commercial Is supposed to be appealing to women. The Old Spice guy is the perfect man because he wears Old Spice. Men who see this will think that they need to wear Old Spice in order to get these women that the commercial is talking to. They commercial also points out a stereotype about women and that they like it when men buys them things like tickets and diamonds.

Through the Window: Thoughts on Gender, Gaze, and Privacy

     Rear Window is a great interpretation of the issues of gender, gaze and privacy. Filmed during the 50’s, it represents the worlds view on the roles a gender must conform to. This film also shows the effects of interpretation of a situation and how this interpretation may be seen as an invasion of privacy.

     Back in the 50’s, men were to be the providers while women were to be the care givers. This can be seen in the beginning of the movie when Jeffries is home after being injured on the job and his girlfriend, Lisa, visits him. She is a very attractive woman, comes from the upper class and enjoys the finer things in life. Her dream is for Jefferies to marry her and to live a comfortable life together. This fits into the vision of the ‘male gaze’ (Practices of Looking, 124). To the audience, ( remember this was made in the 50’s) men took pleasure in seeing a perfect woman, dressed to the nines and concerned about becoming a wife. The male role was seen in Mr. Thorwald. Before the murder of his invalid wife, he would take care of her and make sure she had everything she needed. These gender stereotypes were broken in the film by Lisa providing Jefferies with evidence and support and Mr. Thorwald stopped proving for his wife and killed her.

     Now to the gaze in general. The gaze is created “through a relationship of subjects defined within and through the discourses of institutions” (Practices of Looking, 104).This can be seen when Jefferies observes his neighbors actions and discusses them with Lisa and Stella. Like when was talking about Ms. Lonely Heart, the dancer lady, and Mr. Thorwald. These discussions lead into further discussions and make each character form opinions on those situations.

     This then leads to the issue of privacy. When is someone intrusive and when is it just a concerned neighbor. Peeping in on another’s personal life is very intrusive in my opinion).  I think that when there is a possibility of someone getting in trouble or hurt that you should look further into the situation. Everybody eavesdrops a little, it is what they do with that little bit of information that makes it good or bad.   

     This brings up Stella’s comment on how people today are peeping toms and that they should step out and look at themselves.  I completely agree with this observation because there are too many people out there that will criticize others and will make judgments on them when they themselves are the ones who need the criticism. What I mean is that people need to realize that they are being judged too, and by putting their nose into another’s business, they are damaging their own face.

     Rear Window is an overall great movie to observe the concepts of gender, gaze and privacy.