Pitch: A short-film in which portrays my social experiment of how a key aspect of celebrity culture – the paparazzi – can have on a non-celebrity figure. The footage displayed with evoke the notion and atmospheric of the experiment and show the subjects behavior and feelings towards this celebrity aspect suddenly shadowing his life over a four day period. A imitation of the spectacle of celebrity culture.
I wanted to approach my second experiment as it was a social psychological experiment, to do so I pursuited to look at social psychological experiment themselves to analysis their format, structure and presentation. I was intrigued by experiments such as The Stanford Prison Experiment and this theme of identity; how it affects our behaviour but reason in which why we have branded these cultural on mythical level. I believed that these experiments, these phenomenal outcomes were a very interesting and easily capable approach for my spectacle artefact, which left we with one element to discover for the project; the idea.
After watching various programmes in which play and present the celebrity culture very uniquely, each of them different however all the media forms of the celebrity cultural was a very interesting topic for me; the domination and yet the depression of being a celebrity intriguing, one in which i wanted to learn more of. The biggest influence for me was the documentary of I’m Still Here (2010) starring Joaquin Phoenix who plays a perception of himself but invites the world to be provoked of his celebrity lifestyle. A very interesting yet cynical film about the celebrity icon. My second influence in which is clear in my research was the tabloid and public fascination of the celebrity figure; by looking at media forms about X Factor and Big Brother contestants who have to cope with becoming suddenly famous over night.
The aim for the study was to investigate how being the subject of mass media attention, influences their persona, society vales and characteristics, to a person who isn’t identified as a celebrity figure. The connotation meaning being; I was going to ‘paparazzi’ my friend for four days and record his behaviour and camera to investigate the differences and development each day.
The production of the experiment went very well, however what i did not prepare myself for exactly was the realism of him leaving house, obviously some days were more active in his timetable than others – that is reality aspect of natural life, so one or two days were not as fast in progressing the experiment. However, the subject clearly became more and more frustrating each day, the attention and fascination of being that ‘demanded spectacle’ was suddenly evident, creating a more and more frustrated persona to my friend each day.
Of course there was time throughout the production in the effect of being seen as a celebrity was provoking him to feel embarrassed and annoyed – most notably in public places – and the outcome of the production left me with a great deal of footage such as videos, interviews and photos in which I captured in the four days. But what i did struggle with most is how to then present this is a video format, what was the best way to evoke a four day experiment in a one to three minute time scale.
After analyzing the various formats in which to present my large quantity of footage, i went for ‘the movie trailer’ fashion. A fast and intense video in which provokes enough information, enough signs of the messages in which i wanted to show to the audience.
To me, the video has come out alot better than i had expected. I had received various positive reviews about it both in production and later post production. The video really teases the audience to a clear spectacle project, something that was simple however extremely effected. By labelling this non-celeb figure a celebrity, it sort of plays with our fascination and affection for their culture, on how we constantly want to perceive information about them – imprisoning them so we can have a constant vision upon their lives. The video shows his frustration, his negative approach in which suddenly builds up as a climax on the film, but do we feel bad about caging someone? Possibly not, because is part of the social and cultural world in which we are used, its conventional that celebrities become the story, the subject and attention, all my video did was give that feeling to someone who isn’t used to it; a trailer at being famous. That’s what I wanted to create – a celebrity spectacle .
After each day, the participant/subject did develop more and more frustration with being the spectacle. The two days, the subject was still in the notion of rearranging his life with the camera, getting used to the new reality his occurred himself in. The third and fourth day, when the novelty of being the subject and still dealing with being the discourse subject started to show signs of rebellion against the press. He didn’t want to answer questions, he instead just wanted to pursuit with his day instead of being constantly restricted in answering the media and being the fascination. This is because the subject got suited and comftorable with being the subject and so it became reality for him towards the end, he expected the camera to take his image – even against his will. The participant felt like they had little free will over being captured, like being in a prison; he was for the attention of he world. An interview at the end of the project concluded that the subject felt imprisoned in the experiment which resulted in him restricting himself to go outside because he knew the reality of what would happen. His perception on being a celebrity suddenly changed, and now he being the fascination himself, it evoked a different perspective for the participant in being identified as a celebrity.
Day three and four of the experiment contained very similar results and its when events between the subjected got more heated and the frustration was clearly visible in the captured forms.
The subject between the two days visited a lot more places ‘publically’ compared to the previous two days. Again the subjected continued his university routine, having becoming restricted to go to his studies, it gave him no option but to appear in front of the camera. There was an incident on the second day when Johnny became frustrated with the camera because he was already running late, however the camera was restricting him from proceeding on his journey; signs of frustration and anger were clearly evoked.
On the Thursday (Day 3), the subject participated in going to a local bar and to a supermarket, it was these snaps that gave the impression of being sick and tired of being in the lime light, being the centre of attention. The images from these events clearly show a sign of attempting to withdraw the camera from his life, restricting the visual of his face and disadvantaging the photo from being taken.
The notion of being a ‘celebrity’ had started to crack upon the subject; the persona was damaged of the subject. A need to avoid or being prepared to avoid the press leaving from every building was occurring and the paparazzi were perceived as a ‘pest’.
The results and findings of this were very much expected from before the experiment. I predicted that the subject would be firstly struck by the notion of being perceived as remarkable, but after each day – the perception by the subject changed and it starting to become a unwanted aspect in his life. Is this what celebrities of reality have to live with? Arguably yes, they are the focus, the attention and the subject of the discourse – what the people want to know about and a way to explain their life narrative is to take photos of them.
The subject stopped answering questions; instead he just wanted to pursuit on his routine. Even though I would ask for his consent for the questions and he said no, I still asked them anyway; adding to the tension and frustration of the celebrity having a lack of power in this circumstance. Enprisiong the subject and making them feel enclosed and always being perceived whether they agreed or not.
The subject on the last day visited numerous places in which I was present waiting to take his image; this included a retail park, the sports centre, university and a unknown location where I photographed him leaving and arriving back at his house.
In all of these locations the subject evoked signs of the initial frustration and lack of freewill that he would normally have pre and post to the experiment in his ‘normal’ life.
The evidence explains it all, he wanted to be withdrawn from the camera; evacuate himself from being the fascination but that was not possible, it was not his choice.
The experiment continued at 10:50am the following, as this was the time in which the subject left the house once more to go into university for a lecture. Like yesterday the subject seemed too impelled with the feeling of embracement, stating that the whole ‘camera thing’ was still new to him. This was evident through his facial and body language: showing signs of smirking, stuttering and being nervous when approached by the paparazzi. As I had him questions, his response struggled to come out, however I did feel he was more relaxed with the approach then yesterday. Now he had a ‘slim’ idea of what to expect. One condition that I also influenced his behaviour was the subject receiving publicity when he was solo and in a recluse environment, contrasting to being photographed and ‘nuisanced’ in the city centre where the public could perceive the task.
Instead of papping him outside his university building again, I waited for him to return and start recording again as he is approaching his house. The signs of embarrassment were still valid, the subject clearly isn’t used to the attention, but again he was solo and perhaps that made the task easier for him to be direct and focus upon reaching his front door. When he did approach his front door, he did answer a few questions in which I asked, he obviously felt safer now he was outside house and answered alot more questions than he would of when he walking or ‘had to be somewhere’.
The next attention occurred when a friend of Johnny’s approached the house, as they were subjected for an afternoon of squash. I decided to take photos of the subject’s friend, knowing also that Johnny would approach and answer the door. Embracing on that fact and making the subject aware he we still under surveillance. Both then left for squash soon after, and it was interesting to notice the change in his behaviour now he was ‘performing’ in front of people around them, and not just the lens.
He seemed more direct to ignore the press, and answered little questions. Making the press feel like the nuisance in which many brand them. That he just wants to proceed with his hobby but is propelled by the discourse in doing so.
The last positioning I decided to paperazzify the subject, was a little bit more unexpected; at the sports centre where he plays squash. I waited outside for them to finish, knowing that the subject will be very tired and unimpressed with this particular timing. All he wants to do now is go back and refresh him after two hours squash, not be imbedded by the media. This was exactly the case. He was beginning to portray signs of frustration in the attention he was getting. It was not the most idealistic place and timing to have your photograph taken several times and asked questions about his performances and future events.
Although today was much more of a ‘quieter’ day for the subject in terms of events and activates in which is being part of, it sparks the realism that even days like these are drawn to the attention and fascination of the audience. They want to know all about their social life, what they are doing, what they are wearing and who they are with. This was a fine example for the subject to be a part of. Even though he seemed more recluse to the public and did not feature outside as much as yesterday, when he did go outside in the slightest, the camera was there and ready to broadcast his social life to the people. Keeping alive that feeling that Foucault suggested as ‘imprisonment’, where the subject is under surveillance and visible to the audience.
The experiment commenced at 9:50am Tuesday 9th November. After receiving a copy of the subjects timetable and day plan to the hour, I was able to characterise myself as the media who wanted to evoke the subjects lifestyle to the public figure.
The subject left the house naturally as he would mechanically do to pursuit his way to a group meeting in the city centre. As he opened the door to leave his house, I ignited him with flashing photography, video footage recording and questions. His immediate response, as expected was showing signs of shock; stuttered answers and nervous movement that became sudden. My reasoning for this matter is that the subject didn’t know what to expect, and immediate signs in which were taken place, shocked him.
As the ‘celebrity’ approached the venue of meeting (a coffee shop), I conformed then with photography and questions to Johnny, asking him if he had anything to say to the public and what was the meeting agenda, both being met with a distinctive smirk – a sign of embarrassment, both by him and to the people around him. A unusual provoked feeling that the subject wouldn’t be used to, fascination and attention for him as he is going into a public place surrounding by ‘non identified celebrities’. It was the first perception of being in the limelight and others perceiving it.
As the subject held a meeting in the coffee shop with his acquaintances, I continued taking images of his facial and body language. Now, not him alone but also the subject’s friends and the people surrounding him felt uncomfortable that they were visually aware of their photo being taken and they were under surveillance. Especially not knowing the results in the photographs. So now there was an aspect of uncomftorbility in their knowledge that they had no power, no free will on what was being pursuited around them. The subject’s acquaintances and the people who were surrounding the subject also felt the feeling of being with a celebrity figure, the attention and persistence in which runs parallel with their image. Resulting in the subject feeling embarrassed and responsible for the attention that he was receiving and how it was reflecting on the behaviour and response of the others associated with him at the scene.
A feeling that was evident now within the subject and the people he was with, was the feeling of being watched. A continuous reminder in their minds that a camera was taking images of their actions at any time, but the frustrating feeling was that they didn’t know when. A parallel theory with Foucault, that the subject was feeling imprisoned. However the subject is still vulnerable of this feeling due to the early duration in the project. But it was very interesting to perceive early signs of this behaviour.
My results for day one are what I estimated. At first the experiment was perceived a bit comical by the subject when he wasn’t seen by people without the mediation, but as the subject is seen as a celebrity within society figures, embarrassment and continuous feelings of surveillance started to approach the subject. Leaving the paparazzi provoked how they are provoked in reality, a nuisance.
Constructing an Immediate Celebrity Persona
Background
The types of messages that the celebrity provides for the audience are moralised around forms of individual identification, social difference and distinction, and the universality of personality types. Celebrities represent subject positions that audiences can adopt or adapt in their formation of social identities. Each celebrity represents a complex form of audience-subjectivity that, when placed within a system of celebrities, provides the ground in which distinctions, differences and oppositions are played out. The celebrity, then, is an embodiment of discursive battleground on the norms of individuality and personality within a culture. (Dyer, 1993: 65)
Celebritisation has been increasingly popular of being the subject of mass media attention in society for many generations. There also seems to be an important distinction between the celebrity subject and the public figure. Michel Foucault demonstrated the theory of an imprisoned society in which the subject (the celebrity) is withheld upon. The human interest in popular and contemporary stories of celebrities has emerged mass circulation press to cover and broadcast their lives.
But what conditions do celebrities have to digest in their society, now they are the story of the discourse and how does it affect their behaviour of themselves and too society?
That is the leading question in which I want to propel in this social behaviour experiment. How a subject with the non-celebrity labelled lifestyle controls a sudden impelled fascination with his life.
Aim
The aim of this study is to investigate how being the subject to mass media attention, influences their persona, society and characteristics, to a person who isn’t identified as a celebrity figure.
Method
The experiment will last for a duration of four days, with the independent subject having paparazzi attention in their lifestyle. The independent variable is that the subject will receive the same questions at the start and at the end of the day, for their immediate thoughts and perceptions. The dependant variable is that during the day, the subject will undergo different timetables for each of the four days, issuing various locations and times for mediated. The paparazzi themselves will only capture media forms when the subject is proceeding on a journey. No media forms will be taken within inside of a private construction.
After each day, the subject’s responses in which were perceived throughout of the day, are recorded and analysised at the conclusion.
“The celebrity develops their capacity for fame, not by achieving great things, but by deferenating their own personality from those of their competitors in the public arena.”Daniel Boorstein
“The familiar stranger is no means unprecedented in history. People have long imagined a world populated by figures that were not physically at hand yet seemed somehow present. What has changed, of course, is the magnitude of the flow, the range of characters that enter our world, they omnipresence, the sheer number of stories. Inevitably, today’s stories are but prologues or sequels to other stories, true and less true stories, stories that are themselves intermissions, stories without end.” Todd Gitlin, Media Unlimited, 2001, p.22
Celebrities today ignite and excite a level of public interest. This propelled excitement could be affection or disinfections; however it seems still to be through mass media that we are encouraged to perceive these stories as ‘new’, when infact they are development in what stands as a long contempory extension of a existing condition. Celebrities of course are designed to be evoked as ‘remarkable’. A subject that has a characteristic appeal and unique qualities and extraordinary persona. We regard the ‘celebrity’ as a celeb, as if that is what they essentially are. The celebrity is often quoted as ‘a star’. A star in fact is a bright and powerful function in our society – so is that the metaphor in which we perceive a celebrity also?
“A certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary , men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman or at least superficially exceptional qualities”
Max Weber (1864-1920)
Above is the analysis of German sociologist Max Weber, describing the characteristic individual and evoking charisma as one type of social authority. Does this theoretical approach by Weber describe the entail power of the celebrity? Or is being the star, the entail consequence of their self qualities? Which supports Foucault’s approach of the ‘prison’, and how through discourse we imprison one. Either way, the celebrity is culture fascination; whose character is impelled with their image, simulation and their approach to reality. The public vision is in enclosed on the behaviour and the approach in which the stars in which we have propelled are feature. Theorist Chris Rojeck (2001) and John Frow (1999), drew the conclusions that the cultural fascination and excitement over the celebrity today contains direct parallels to the functions that would be collaborated to religion. Describing that certain celebrities as individuals have evoked performances that promote spiritual experiences for the fan.
Specific Celebrity News Magazines
Celebrity News Covered as Front Page News in National Tabloids
Frow asked the simple question in his study, “is Elvis a god?” Evaluating to the answer, yes. This draws us back to my comments before over the ‘remarkable individual’. Like religious icons, the celebrity is seen as natural, prolific and an icon. Giving the media mass attention and the volume of discourse involving the individual, consoles those who are concerned and who consume. This is what Rojek supported and theorised:
“The celebrity is the consequence of the attribution of qualities to a particular individual through the mass media.”Rojeck, 2001: 10.
While David Giles suggested that: “fame is a’process’, a consequence of the way individuals are treated by the media.” ‘Illusions of Immortality (Giles,2000) From the two quotes, you can draw similarities in their perception on the celebrity. That the media is the ingredient that will ignite the celebrity. Both theories agree that it’s the volume of the mass media determines the volume of the celebrity, even though Roject suggests the celebrity character is the consequence, where as Giles promotes that fame is the process, in which is the consequence of the individual. But without the media, will there be any such volume of fame? Or can the celebrity function as fundamentally with or without the media? Leading onto the topic; ‘the cultural function of the celebrity’.
“At times they are part of the background noise, part of the wallpaper we say. Sometimes we evaluate them as physical beings and moral agents. Often we find them desirable, or enviable, or in some other way they evoke the sentiments, the liking, irritation or boredom, that flesh and blood individuals evoke. Yet an aura of some sort surrounds them. They take up ritual places as heroes, leaders, scapegoats, magical figures, to be admired, envied, lover or hated: to matter” - Todd Gitlin, Media Unlimited, 2001, p132.
So what if the cultural function celebrity. Gitlin’s quote provides an individual perception on the way celebrities are evoked by us, we are the ones who create extraordinary spectacles for these individuals and they become a fabric of our society conventions. They are globalised by the media as contemporary, issuing the power of the relationship between mass mediated celebrities and the consumers of the popular culture. Now due to social networks, para-social relationships are formed between the celebrity and its audience.
( INSERT SOCIAL NETWORK POST HERE)
The majority of celebrity spectacles’ are the results of mass managed media occasions. For example, red carpet occasions, interviews, photo shoots, press conferences, chat shows, panel shows, reality shows and ‘stage’ appearances.
Celebrities are used in media forms to promotion, both themselves and the stage. Richard deCordova states that celebrities are like vehicles for promoting new discourses and the ideals at the time.
“In conspicuously displaying success through material possessions, the star vividly demonstrated the idea that satisfaction was not to be found in work but in one’s activities away from work – and in leisure” Richard deCordova (1990 p108)
Some of the worlds most famous and ‘powerful’ celebrities may have control over their publicity, voicing a final approval over the story. However, there is a text that celebrities may feel ‘imprisonised’ by, and this gossip items and media taken by the paparazzi. In which Alan Sekula (1984 p29) has commented on “the higher truth of the stolen image”. The editors may manipulate the image, such as a bad focus or bad frame to provoke their idea and the nature of the stolen image.
Our interpretation on the conventions of celebrities have given us the morale’s of the right and wrong, the good and the bad. We expect celebrities to be perceived in a certain way because they are seen as ‘the remarkable’, however we are even more fascinated and discoursed to be fascinated on the negative constructs, the ideological concept is broken and our social belief is disrupted. But the discourse of celebrity has imprisoned us to be fascinated by a stars weight problem, dress choice and social behaviour.
Celebrity news has become one of the most principle ways to boundryise society. Fields including politics, entertainment and health advice are embedded into society through celebrity experiences and discoursed stories. One example of this is the Kylie Minogue bread cancer horror, where the media propelled a sudden worthiness for breast cancer stories, in reference to the Kylie story.
Gary Whannel specified the theory of ‘the vortex of publicity’. Applying that despite the amount of time inevested in controlling the visibillity of the media , there is such a point where media events are built up so mich, they have a momentum on their own. His quote below also formulates and identifies a discourse construction in today’s celebrity society.
“The growth in the range of media outlets and the vastly increased speed of circulation of information have combined to create a phenomenon of a ‘vortex’ effect, which I term as ‘vortextuality’. Certain major events super events come to dominate the headlines to such an extent that it becomes temporarily difficult to discuss anything else.” Gary Whannel (2002: 206)
Reality TV shows are the most substantial effective example of sudden celebritisation on the individual who was has become an ‘overnight celebrity’, due to their performances and participation on the show, which is propelled by the media. Examples of these shows include ‘X Factor’, ‘Big Brother’ and in a certain aspect, ‘I’m a celebrity get me out of here’.
X Factor and Big Brother are two of Britain’s biggest televisions shows of the last decade, reaching out and perceived by millions of viewers week in week out. The contestants on the show become the discourse subject of the tabloids, social networking sites and public discourse.
X Factor : Wagner
X Factor contestants: Jedward (John and Edward)
X Factor: Judge, Cheryl Cole and contestant, Alexzandra Burke
Big Brother: Chantelle and Preston
Big Brother: Brian Belo
‘Stars’ who have been ignited suddenly become the fabric of the discourse; their lives are immediately wanted and spoke about. The public, both who love and hate it are discoursed to talk about it, along with the media speculating more coverage and more conversations and topics to talk about. Through the moralised discourse, the press construct constant issues of news and images of the stars who are seen as the subjects ‘imprisoned’ and whom Foucault suggested, are the slaves, the consequence of being the celebrity. The reasoning for paparazzi photographs and press stories about the stars, because its part of the fabric of the discourse. Zimardo’s ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’, gave the subjects an immediate identity, and as the duration went on, the subjects saw themselves perceived in that identity. The guards became much more controlling and propelled the feeling of having power and authority, where the prisoners were a contrast, they depersonalised themselves.
So do these sudden celebrities absorb their identity and their value of power and accept they are the volume of the discourse? Does their behaviour and identity perception of themselves affect their persona? That would be the key idea aim for my spectacle experiment. Pursuiting to discover the behaviour and impact that being the subject of a ‘discourse’ through paparazzi demand can have on a ‘non celebrity’ icon.
Ai Weiwei is a Chinese artist who has designed some of the most spectacle forms of art of the last century. His thinking behind his work helps creates such beautiful, poignant and mind-provoking sculpture that assemble ‘something remarkable’. His most current series, ‘The Unilever Series’ is now on display in the Turbine Hall of Tate Modern. But like his previous work, his design is created through personal powerful content and narrative that is evoked. The Unilever Series features 100 million seeds, apparent to be sunflower seeds. However, they are individually crafted from Chinese workshops in Jongdezehn. Simulating the theme of ‘made in China’. This phenomenon in which we are used to reading on particular products ignites this cultural impact that we might never perceive.
Each side is a personal art, a relationship by one individual to the other and to the masses. The image created is a spectacular visual that holds multiple significance, a deeper meaning behind the initial perception. The seeds are like a symbol of China themselves. The work of Weiwei is disliked and perceived as unhealthy in China, but these form is 150 tons of handcrafted precise ceramics and covering multiple square metres across the land of the Turbine Hall. But it is something effectively simple that has a propelled influence on the masses. The seed is a sign of hope – a food product to be conceived but it is also dangerous as it perceives a sort of stone monument. Commissioning the theme of life and death, happiness and pain – like China.
A spectacular maxmalism of art that defines a spectacle experience.
Weiwei’s discography of uproarious spectacular and eye pleasuring work however doesn’t conclude there. Ai was also the art consultant behind the breathtaking stadium design of the Beijing National Stadium, also regarded as ‘The Birds Nest’. The stadium was constructed and architectured for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, a design perceived as a porous, collective and a public vessel. The stadium was to unify the world, with Chinese history and conventions labelling the design ‘made in China’ worthy. The study of Chinese ceramics, the design was constructed for ‘The Birds Nest’.
Li Xinggang” “Why does a Chinese bowl or a Chinese window have this kind of pattern? Maybe the Chinese people like things to appear in this irregular way, but underneath there are very clear rules. The Bird’s Nest developed in this way.”
Weiwei art vision directed the product to propel, raising many ways in which the stadium should be perceived. In a cultural reference, a birds nest is a very expensive food, something they only eat on special occasions. Which is a strong representation to the stadium itself. It’s a constructed and manipulated spectacular stadium, that is very expensive to design, build, perceive and event and retain, but it is special and when it is being used it passes on its remarkable aspect into the event.
His sculptures also perceive their spectacular visual perception. The ‘Design Llama is a bike sculpture that seems to never conclude. Evoking to the viewer and the masses the ‘forever’ appeal. A striking yet clever design. Weiwei’s designs are a different perception of art that manipulate the spectacle. They contain deeper signs that are reasoned behind them. Meanings that I will need focus upon for my ‘spectacle piece’. But where social psychology also presents spectacle, Weiwei evokes this theme through the visual itself in which the masses then consume the reasons behind his creative, realist and remarkable mind.
Power can be caressed through spectacle through multiple forms. A different form to social psychology is, photography.
Photography has the power of manipulation, design, creation and the opportunity to create something remarkable. ‘Something remarkable’- is that the definition of spectacle? The eye witnessing something quite so remarkable that we accept it as spectacular. So what is remarkable? What do we see as remarkable as to something that isn’t remarkable? Well these photography series may arrive into the ‘remarkable’ bracket.
The first is the artist ‘Slinkachu’. Slinkachu is a miniaturist. Modifying human postures from models and manipulating them into urban situations. Instead of the propaganda rebellion approach by artist such as Bansky, Slinkachu arouses his art with more a sensitive and shuttle approach. Something very basic and simple, but so powerful and attractive to consume.
Slinkachu creates an up-close perspective for the view, forcing them to accept this real life situation manipulated through models. Before revealing the reality perspective, where you can hardly see the figures at all. Creating models so small that have such a big perspective of the real big world. Twisting the idea of ‘spectacle’ by many directions. Directing the audience to perceive these attractions and situations from a circumstance in which they never could.
Jan Wollert and Jorg Miedza also create some remarkable visuals through photography, however their designs and series’ are very different to the prior of Slinkachu. Instead, they pursuit in creating images that manipulate the light that travels around the room. They promote the unnaturalness in which is perceived by the viewer to create such spectacle. Through the power of art and photography, they generate these rages of light and rapture them to the viewer. They are of objects we could never the see with they eye, but they evoke and bleed remarkable epicenes and are spectacular to perceive.
Another visual artist in pursuit to promote and evoke to the audience ‘something remarkable’ is Andrew Gursky. Gurksy evokes and promotes visuals that are beyond breathtaking. He creates large designs within his image that arouse that ‘remarkable’ boundary. His images signify you to observe them carefully, trying to fulfil their maximum potential. However, you feel overloaded and obstructed with such power and information that you just perceive them as ‘remarkable’.
But something remarkable doesn’t have to be judged on its scale or perception of size. It can be simply breaking conventions in which the remarkable shine is touched. The meanings on signs behind the image could represent why the image is bracketed as a spectacle. Eric Lafforgue’s photos here have captured just that. The first breaking the rules of postmodernism: the power of feministy of the age and decline in dominance of the masculinity. The first image labels a woman in a soldiers suit. In a country such as North Korea, this is very unconventional. Her lock of hair freeing down her face issues the identity of ‘a woman, as well as an individual’. Which are two very uncommon conventions in which occurs in North Korea. A powerful meaning in the form of a photograph. A photograph that breaks the conventions of a culture, labelling it as remarkable.
The second image also provokes the definition of ‘something remarkable’. A unified army, an army that are wearing the same clothes and who are all men are contrasted by the lady pink. The male carries representations of power, dominance and control. However their freewill seems to be labelled as questionable as the lady in pink contrasts the colour of the image. But she also stands in a conventional manner; a pink dress labels the feminism. Carrying all the conventions of feminism such as; weakness and vulnerability. But the pink is designed to be identified by the viewer. Issuing that the woman is meant to be witnessed. Supporting representations of female right of the modern day. Identifying the soldiers as one subject who are less important, who you do not focus upon. Instead you gaze upon the woman and her identity in the image. It goes without saying; it’s a remarkable and fascinating image to look at.
Conformity is one of human’s natural conventions. We all copy each other’s dress codes, appearances, language, attitudes and styles. We may not realise either. But how far do we go in being influenced by someone, how far does our conformity go?
The Soloman Asch study looks at the power of conformity and how it affects our own senses to conform to others. The two diagrams below show one image with one line and another with three. Which one of the lines ( A, B or C) is the same length as the line on the other diagram.
The answer is clearly C. They are the same length; they start and conclude in the same place. However the study showed that 76% denied their own senses, their own trust and their own instinct. Instead they chose A and B, but why?
Eight people were seen as the participants on the test. The subject, the real experimental participant was placed sixth. Leaving five confederates of the experimenter to give a wrong answer. Leaving the subjects judgement to the ambiguous test to be perceived as uncertain. The power of conformity was witnessed 75% of the 12 trials. Leaving only 25% of the participants refused to sway into the majority judgement. Asch discovered that all the participants felt self conscious, anxious and feared disapproval and so were percepted to follow the groups false majority answer. Others knew the large majority answer was incorrect but still chose it so they don’t feel left out. Others claimed they perceived the lines in the same way as the group.
The results perceive to see that the ‘conformers’ in the study have high levels of anxiety, low status, high need to approval and personalities with the power of authority. This displays the power of conformity within societies. Conformity is a line of discourse. It could be debated that we talk about ‘subjects’ because we may feel the same as the conformers if we don’t. Supporting Foulcaults analysis of discourse and how it is controlled by the master to the slave. That if we don’t ‘discuss’, then we find the inability to conform is a real issue and we feel detached and un-unified.
Social Psychology experiments involving society and cultural groups in activities that influence behaviour and the way the ‘subject’ performs has had a very strong influence in today’s activity socially. Social psychologists believe our behaviour is influenced by presence of others. The dominant strength of social psychology is using real life social activities and situations to discover and analyse behaviour and performance. Real studies are influential in anaylsisng real behaviour because it allows the participant to interact and be socially active within the experiment. Conclusions have be drawn about social psychology and how its results from experiments can offer a beneficial side to the world. Solving problems and offering solutions. But the ethics in social psychology is seen as the problem. Surely the participant is effected either mentally or physically or else it would be difficult to study the social behaviour. Also how can the social approach and findings from the study be related to whole of society? One media form which was heavily influenced y past findings in this genre of psychology was of course, Big Brother.
The first example of Social Psychology is the study, ‘Pilivan, Rodin and Pilivan’ (1969). The aim of the study was to investigate and analyse the effect of the type of victim which gained most help – drunk or ill, the race in which gained the most help – black or white, also the speed of helping with the frequency of helping plus the race of the helper. This study has over 4450 participants, and was set on the subway of New York. The result findings were very high. 62/65 trials, the can victim received spontaneous help and the drunk victim 19/38. The race of the victims played no significance but the race helping the same race on the drunken victim was much higher. The experiment was to measure good samaritanism. Examining the social influences on the decsisions we make as a society in emergency situation. But are these results conclusive enough to conclude for all? If you change the time of day from early afternoon, would the results be the same? Only social reconstruction can tell.
This second example is a much more clear formulation of the themes ‘power and spectacle’. The ‘Reicher and Haslam’ (2006) study demonstrated the importance of identity, and how it influences behaviour. The study was carried out to examine the behaviour and events in which would occur when you divide men into prisoners and guards into a prison construction with an duration of 8 days. The study was a similar replica to Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment, in which again the male participants were divided into guards or prisoners. Before Zimbardo’s experiment in 1973, the 24 participants were all passed as mentally and physically healthy. The simulated prison cells were 6x9ft, with three prisoners per cell. To help conclude the identity of each, uniforms were worn by the guards and by the prisoners. The identity would increase; the individuality between each group then would be separated. Both Zimbardo’s and Reicher and Haslam experiments witnessed the power of identity and authority become increasingly aggressive, both through behaviour and verbal. Contrasting to the prisoners behaviour in which became depersonalised; suffering fro depression, crying and acute anxiety. Neither study completed its intial duration because of the authority and mental effects it was having on all of the participants. Suggesting that power seen through our own authority effects our behaviour and that the institutions and conventions seen for the role in which were played by the participants were by them seen as ‘expected’. Linking Foucault’s theory of moralism. We have created what is accepted, expected and what is unacceptable and neglected, and seen as ‘wrong’. So was it our own moralism that we have created to perceive conventions in which determinate how see certain figures of authority. For example, a police officer is seen to have the power, the authority and the control where a prisoner is seen to have his freewill taken away from him and to construct his life in punishment.
The last study I want to anaylse is the ‘Milgram experiment’ (1963). His aim for the study was to investigate what level of obedience and behaviour would be shown when one participant was told by an authority figure to shock another. A study consisting of 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50. However, the study was advertised in a local paper in which called the it ‘a study of memory and learning’. The studies findings found that all 40 applicants obeyed the administrator and 26 of them delivered the maximum volts of 450. If the participant questioned there own actions and asked “should I continue?”, their comments were responded by ‘prods’. Such as “please continue” or “it requires for you to continue”. Making it seem like there was no choice, they were the slave and they were told that they must continue giving the shocks when needed. When the study was complete and the participant had completed proceedings, they expressed sighs and signs of regret. When during the experiment they displayed signs of nervousness, tension and unease. Milgram’s explanations for their actions was that he though that they believed it was for a ‘worthy purpose’, that had some influence on the later research for Yale University. As well as believing that the victim also was a volunteer and therefore had an agreement to continue even when signs became uncomfortable and unpleasant. This was a misleading judgement of power. The participant has a feeling of having no freewill, no option but to accept the proceedings of the task. Making them continue in doing so, even though it is demoralised, and they were perfectly aware of this. Which caused the regret and shame they felt after the study.
