To me, art is something that is probably on my list of words that are most broadly defined. I started thinking about it more to see if I could narrow down my idea of what it was to help better define it, and that was just so difficult! Helping to prove my point, the Webster dictionary definition of "art" is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". That's pretty broad if you ask me. I consider so many parts of every day life art it's ridiculous. From the way people decide to decorate their cars with bumper stickers or decals or what not to the shoes they wear to the way they wear their hair-- all of those things go towards making a statement about someone and their character.
Since art is mainly used to express oneself, and celebrities are often exactly what people want to be, it is no surprise that celebrities are inevitably closely linked with art. In my opinion, a tattoo is one of the most common ways I will see "art" being portrayed. It is a permanent design, symbol or saying, usually with a deeper meaning, permanently inked onto skin. When I searched "celebrity art" on Google (just because I couldn't think of any pieces of art I had seen recently having to do with celebrities) I realized that the main things that popped up were simple paintings of celebrities or pictures of tattoos of them on people. Obviously, it is no question that we worship them or something!
I chose the tattoo I saw on someone's back of Bob Marley as my piece of art. This one stood out first off because it takes up the person's entire back with just one image, and second because Bob Marley is such an icon because of all that he stands for. Clearly this person is more than proud of Bob Marley and all that he stands for because he or she decided to magnify the image to take up their entire back side! This just means that the celebrity status can have such an impact- people hear of your name and what you stand for and before you know it you can have your face tattooed on their back!
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/bob-marley-tattoo
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Following Celebrities... But Literally?
Modern technology has most definitely made social networking one of the most successful ways of fans accessing celebrities and their lives. There are countless ways that celebrities get their name out via social networking, with Twitter and Facebook being the prime two. Since it is easy to make fan pages have a large capacity of "friends" liking the page, or an unlimited amount of followers on Twitter, these sites are fans' dream as they are able to virtually get updates on the lives of celebrities without seeing them in person.
With sites like this, celebrities no doubt know that they are followed by their millions of everyday people interested in the "celebrity life". Knowing that this is the case, some celebrites welcome this kind of attention with open arms while others can become quite annoyed with the fact that almost every move on the internet will be seen by fans. That is when several pages are made by celebrity "wannabes" who make a Facebook page or Twitter account posing as a specific famous personality.
This whole social networking idea pertaining to celebrities all ties back to the fact that people can be whoever they want via the internet. The new age of technology has brought about several advantages, but also disadvantages in the fact that an entirely different life can be lead through a website- or maybe even many websites at once. Not only could we be following celebrities, but we may also be following some bored middle-aged man posing as a young and gorgeous female celebrity.
With the fact that celebrities have a strong presence in social networking, along with the celebrity impersonators, we must be mindful of how we let their statuses and tweets impact our daily life. Whether it is the celebrity or another everyday person, his/her status shouldn't give that personality any more credibility.
With sites like this, celebrities no doubt know that they are followed by their millions of everyday people interested in the "celebrity life". Knowing that this is the case, some celebrites welcome this kind of attention with open arms while others can become quite annoyed with the fact that almost every move on the internet will be seen by fans. That is when several pages are made by celebrity "wannabes" who make a Facebook page or Twitter account posing as a specific famous personality.
This whole social networking idea pertaining to celebrities all ties back to the fact that people can be whoever they want via the internet. The new age of technology has brought about several advantages, but also disadvantages in the fact that an entirely different life can be lead through a website- or maybe even many websites at once. Not only could we be following celebrities, but we may also be following some bored middle-aged man posing as a young and gorgeous female celebrity.
With the fact that celebrities have a strong presence in social networking, along with the celebrity impersonators, we must be mindful of how we let their statuses and tweets impact our daily life. Whether it is the celebrity or another everyday person, his/her status shouldn't give that personality any more credibility.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Ain't Nobody Got Time for That!
I find it so interesting how normal people have become famous these days because of their videos going viral. I especially want to focus on the videos that have been extracted from local news shows, like Sweet Brown and Antoine Dodson. Their videos have become popular as the amount of views and likes on YouTube begins to sky-rocket as word gets around and people start the chain by showing them to their friends as entertainment.
The most interesting part is that these clips have been taken from a regular news show. Someone found these clips to have more entertainment value than just regular news, and found their performance to be "news-worthy" in another way- in the "entertainment" industry via YouTube. My argument is that the "stars" of these clips, like Sweet Brown and Antoine Dodson, have become celebrities without even trying. There have been lines used from their performances exponentially more as the amount of views increases, like "Ain't nobody got time for that" and "We gonna find you"-- lines that much of our YouTube entertainment generation population is familiar with instantly.
I'm sure when these people were being interviewed by reporters they had no idea that their performances would be celebrated and enjoyed over and over again just by typing in a few words and hitting the "play" button.
With that being said, I think the term celebrity is defined more broadly by this example. After all, the Webster definition of the word "celebrity" is "the state of being celebrated; a famous or celebrated person." The rise of YouTube has also caused a rise of the amount of the not-so-typical celebrities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOMevcsI0lo&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkOIP_Qiccg&feature=endscreen&NR=1
The most interesting part is that these clips have been taken from a regular news show. Someone found these clips to have more entertainment value than just regular news, and found their performance to be "news-worthy" in another way- in the "entertainment" industry via YouTube. My argument is that the "stars" of these clips, like Sweet Brown and Antoine Dodson, have become celebrities without even trying. There have been lines used from their performances exponentially more as the amount of views increases, like "Ain't nobody got time for that" and "We gonna find you"-- lines that much of our YouTube entertainment generation population is familiar with instantly.
I'm sure when these people were being interviewed by reporters they had no idea that their performances would be celebrated and enjoyed over and over again just by typing in a few words and hitting the "play" button.
With that being said, I think the term celebrity is defined more broadly by this example. After all, the Webster definition of the word "celebrity" is "the state of being celebrated; a famous or celebrated person." The rise of YouTube has also caused a rise of the amount of the not-so-typical celebrities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOMevcsI0lo&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkOIP_Qiccg&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Wait, Which Candidate Did the Most Celebrities Endorse?
With the current election being in full swing, I find it only appropriate to blog on that topic! Though I don't believe that in this case that celebrities impact voters too too often, it is still very interesting to see how their political leanings are broadcast over the web as if they will impact their fans.
I thought about this as I was listening to the radio earlier, and after Nicki Minaj's song was over the radio broadcaster commented with, "and that was Nicki Minaj, who is said to endorse Mitt Romney." I'm not sure why, but right after I heard this I searched that trend on my phone. It was taken out of context, of course, because she later revoked the statement and said that wasn't what she meant, but my response to this whole ordeal still amused me. The fact that I am always anxious to check facts I hear about celebrities as soon as I can is kind of a habit that I am not too proud of but I will go ahead and guess that many others have the same guilty pleasure as well.
This goes back to my claim that we are very interested in the lives of celebrities and what choices they decide to make. In this case, I would say that it doesn't as much affect what we will vote (unless someone is completely clueless about current events and has no idea where they stand!), but more of how we look at celebrities. We hear so much about their lives on a daily basis that I suppose we feel it is our business to find out what their political leanings are. The website I found shows pictures of various celebrities sighted at political events and their comments made to media alluding to who they support. For those that are more easily swayed, all they have to do is go on that website and scan through the pictures to find their favorite celebrity and take that information in to possibly make their decision on the upcoming election.
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities/celebrities-endorsing-candidates-1.3492954#14
I thought about this as I was listening to the radio earlier, and after Nicki Minaj's song was over the radio broadcaster commented with, "and that was Nicki Minaj, who is said to endorse Mitt Romney." I'm not sure why, but right after I heard this I searched that trend on my phone. It was taken out of context, of course, because she later revoked the statement and said that wasn't what she meant, but my response to this whole ordeal still amused me. The fact that I am always anxious to check facts I hear about celebrities as soon as I can is kind of a habit that I am not too proud of but I will go ahead and guess that many others have the same guilty pleasure as well.
This goes back to my claim that we are very interested in the lives of celebrities and what choices they decide to make. In this case, I would say that it doesn't as much affect what we will vote (unless someone is completely clueless about current events and has no idea where they stand!), but more of how we look at celebrities. We hear so much about their lives on a daily basis that I suppose we feel it is our business to find out what their political leanings are. The website I found shows pictures of various celebrities sighted at political events and their comments made to media alluding to who they support. For those that are more easily swayed, all they have to do is go on that website and scan through the pictures to find their favorite celebrity and take that information in to possibly make their decision on the upcoming election.
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities/celebrities-endorsing-candidates-1.3492954#14
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Interviews with the Former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Our present assignment in English 241 is to write four letters between two famous people, whether they are historically famous or current celebrities. In preparation to write these, we have to locate 4-6 reputable sources to help give us the background information from which to write the letters from. Though the letters we write cannot at all be taken seriously, it is important to find the most credible of sources to make their material as factual and even believable as possible.
I will be writing my letters between former President John F. Kennedy and his wife, the former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. The fact that the "Kennedy" name is a household name with several links, I think people would find this interesting since the president and his wife especially have been in the midst of various scandals, mostly involving President Kennedy's suspected infidelity.
To find my first source, I went to library.tamu.edu and clicked on Databases, then typed in Academic Search Complete, which led me to EBSCO. Before searching for articles that contained both John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, I made sure to set the settings to only allow articles with full texts present as well as only ones that were peer-edited. I found the introduction to 368 pages and 8 CDs long of interviews of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis by Arthur M. Schlesinger. This set of recorded interviews is called Jacqueline Kennedy: Historical Conversations On Her Life With John F. Kennedy, and the part that is printed online is the introduction, which gives great insight into what was found in those interviews.
As background information, it is said that Schlesinger's purpose for interviewing the late Mrs. Kennedy was not primarily for her life story, but really for her husband's- and she also agreed to do them mostly to preserve her husband's legacy. The interviews were also started when the women's movement had not begun yet and the idea of doing a scholarly study of the First Lady was not yet in peoples' minds. The interviews began four months after the assassination of her husband, and Kennedy-Onassis did feel as if she had been too candid at times, calling back some of her personal revelations from being published. When Kennedy-Onassis passed away, however, her daughter Caroline deemed it appropriate to pull it all out for publication.
The interviews Schlesinger had gotten published were not reviewed by Onassis and were in turn pretty much unedited, including background noises and the brief pauses that were present. Schlesinger was able to get the first lady's personal insight on several of the famous people that been linked at some point to her and her husband. Most of all, he got to hear of how Kennedy's presidency affected their marriage. Kennedy Onassis revealed that the most peaceful time of their marriage was really the three years that they lived in the White House because they were finally always living under the same roof and no longer worrying about campaigning. She talks of how she did not believe she changed from living there, but was surprised people saw her as a snob for not enjoying politics and that she knew how to speak French.
Interestingly enough, the interviewer and interviewee completely ignore all of the aspects of John Kennedy that were involved in the assertions that he had cheated on her over the years. Jacqueline expressed disapproval for the vice president that succeeded Kennedy after his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson, and went on to say he was "crude, insecure and self-absorbed." She also expressed her protectiveness for her children's privacy and her objection to the Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, probably a large part being because she had been victimized by the press before especially with them publicizing the details of her husband's affairs.
This article's main purpose is obviously to give preview to the interviews with Jacqueline Kennedy-Onassis. It begins to what kind of things she reveals and what is conveniently kept quiet, which tells a lot about the life both her and her husband lived together and separately. The rhetorical message is just that there is so much interest in the life of the president, and at the time it was kind of unheard of for the First Lady to be analyzed, but she can be learned about so much just by reading the precise transcripts of her many interviews. The article addresses a fairly large audience, as quite frankly many Americans appear to be interested in the Kennedy's personal lives from the tragedy of the assassination to the personal lives before Kennedy was unfairly murdered.
JACQUELINE KENNEDY: HISTORICAL CONVERSATIONS ON HER LIFE WITH JOHN F. KENNEDY. Interviews with Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., 1964. Introduction and Annotations by Michael Beschloss. New York: Hyperion, 2011.
I will be writing my letters between former President John F. Kennedy and his wife, the former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. The fact that the "Kennedy" name is a household name with several links, I think people would find this interesting since the president and his wife especially have been in the midst of various scandals, mostly involving President Kennedy's suspected infidelity.
To find my first source, I went to library.tamu.edu and clicked on Databases, then typed in Academic Search Complete, which led me to EBSCO. Before searching for articles that contained both John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, I made sure to set the settings to only allow articles with full texts present as well as only ones that were peer-edited. I found the introduction to 368 pages and 8 CDs long of interviews of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis by Arthur M. Schlesinger. This set of recorded interviews is called Jacqueline Kennedy: Historical Conversations On Her Life With John F. Kennedy, and the part that is printed online is the introduction, which gives great insight into what was found in those interviews.
As background information, it is said that Schlesinger's purpose for interviewing the late Mrs. Kennedy was not primarily for her life story, but really for her husband's- and she also agreed to do them mostly to preserve her husband's legacy. The interviews were also started when the women's movement had not begun yet and the idea of doing a scholarly study of the First Lady was not yet in peoples' minds. The interviews began four months after the assassination of her husband, and Kennedy-Onassis did feel as if she had been too candid at times, calling back some of her personal revelations from being published. When Kennedy-Onassis passed away, however, her daughter Caroline deemed it appropriate to pull it all out for publication.
The interviews Schlesinger had gotten published were not reviewed by Onassis and were in turn pretty much unedited, including background noises and the brief pauses that were present. Schlesinger was able to get the first lady's personal insight on several of the famous people that been linked at some point to her and her husband. Most of all, he got to hear of how Kennedy's presidency affected their marriage. Kennedy Onassis revealed that the most peaceful time of their marriage was really the three years that they lived in the White House because they were finally always living under the same roof and no longer worrying about campaigning. She talks of how she did not believe she changed from living there, but was surprised people saw her as a snob for not enjoying politics and that she knew how to speak French.
Interestingly enough, the interviewer and interviewee completely ignore all of the aspects of John Kennedy that were involved in the assertions that he had cheated on her over the years. Jacqueline expressed disapproval for the vice president that succeeded Kennedy after his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson, and went on to say he was "crude, insecure and self-absorbed." She also expressed her protectiveness for her children's privacy and her objection to the Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, probably a large part being because she had been victimized by the press before especially with them publicizing the details of her husband's affairs.
This article's main purpose is obviously to give preview to the interviews with Jacqueline Kennedy-Onassis. It begins to what kind of things she reveals and what is conveniently kept quiet, which tells a lot about the life both her and her husband lived together and separately. The rhetorical message is just that there is so much interest in the life of the president, and at the time it was kind of unheard of for the First Lady to be analyzed, but she can be learned about so much just by reading the precise transcripts of her many interviews. The article addresses a fairly large audience, as quite frankly many Americans appear to be interested in the Kennedy's personal lives from the tragedy of the assassination to the personal lives before Kennedy was unfairly murdered.
JACQUELINE KENNEDY: HISTORICAL CONVERSATIONS ON HER LIFE WITH JOHN F. KENNEDY. Interviews with Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., 1964. Introduction and Annotations by Michael Beschloss. New York: Hyperion, 2011.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
As I usually write about how the networks we watch on TV and how they choose what is "news" to us, I realized that when it comes down to it we as viewers have put that power into their hands. As they get their ratings from what we watch, we give them money to continue funding for owning broadcasting networks.
I bet if I asked you to list some television "news" channels I would only hear about four or five answers- ABC, FOX, NBC, CNN... that's pretty much all I can think of. And that is pretty much all that is able to get their name out there at this point. . These news networks don't just get to where they are. Over several years they have been this way. So I decided to look up "Media Corporations" on Google, and one of the first search results was a 1997 article on what corporations own the media (we actually read about this a couple of chapters ago in English). Sadly, it is the same fifteen years ago as it is today- there are about five companies that alone own the media. Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch's Business Corporation were the top five media corporations.
Then I looked at the current media corporations (2012) and saw that not much has changed- in the article I read it says that 6 corporations own the same amount that 50 corporations owned in 1983 (90% of the media). That is scary! That means that there are fewer executives of fewer corporations have say in what we view.
Although these companies are not necessarily to blame for what we see, they are a large part of why what we see is so limited and there isn't a lot of variety. Just a thought, and it is definitely appropriate when it comes to how I process what we take in via the media.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1406
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
I bet if I asked you to list some television "news" channels I would only hear about four or five answers- ABC, FOX, NBC, CNN... that's pretty much all I can think of. And that is pretty much all that is able to get their name out there at this point. . These news networks don't just get to where they are. Over several years they have been this way. So I decided to look up "Media Corporations" on Google, and one of the first search results was a 1997 article on what corporations own the media (we actually read about this a couple of chapters ago in English). Sadly, it is the same fifteen years ago as it is today- there are about five companies that alone own the media. Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch's Business Corporation were the top five media corporations.
Then I looked at the current media corporations (2012) and saw that not much has changed- in the article I read it says that 6 corporations own the same amount that 50 corporations owned in 1983 (90% of the media). That is scary! That means that there are fewer executives of fewer corporations have say in what we view.
Although these companies are not necessarily to blame for what we see, they are a large part of why what we see is so limited and there isn't a lot of variety. Just a thought, and it is definitely appropriate when it comes to how I process what we take in via the media.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1406
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
Monday, October 8, 2012
I am going to be somewhat cliche and analyze the movie Mean Girls. It has been on about five times that I can think of in the last month or so! The interesting thing is that I don't think I have ever seen the whole movie all at once sitting down. I am way too ADD and just cannot sit still for that long when it comes to many movies (no matter how much I may enjoy them).
Mean Girls would definitely be a defining movie of my childhood to teenhood, and I suppose even up to my young adulthood. The quotes from that movie never end, whether friends mention them in passing, they show up in memes on Facebook, or the plot is used in a skit that everyone can relate to. I feel like the movie contains such an elaborate plot that is able to reach out to pretty much any viewer in some sort of way.
Whether you are in middle school, or have graduated college and have been out of school for many years, everyone (even guys) can relate to the cliquey drama that unfolds in the hallways of a high school. We all know we have seen of or heard of an inappropriate relationship between a coach and student. We all know of that one "popular girl" who tends to stir up drama in every group, even if she isn't a part of it. We all know that the "new girl" in high school always seems to get attention because there is a question of what group she will become a part of since they have all already independently developed. It is always hard to be smart (especially at math)and not come off as nerdy. Girls "bitchy" claws come out when it comes to guys they are interested in, And lastly, as Halloween is coming up, we all know that the costume goal for young girls is to be as skanky as possible while still looking like some sort of character.
Tina Fey as a producer did a wonderful job of collaborating all of these little aspects into one big hilarious plot. The quotes from this movie seem to never die, and I think it is safe to say that it is a widespread opinion that that the movie is a defining one for our generation.
Mean Girls would definitely be a defining movie of my childhood to teenhood, and I suppose even up to my young adulthood. The quotes from that movie never end, whether friends mention them in passing, they show up in memes on Facebook, or the plot is used in a skit that everyone can relate to. I feel like the movie contains such an elaborate plot that is able to reach out to pretty much any viewer in some sort of way.
Whether you are in middle school, or have graduated college and have been out of school for many years, everyone (even guys) can relate to the cliquey drama that unfolds in the hallways of a high school. We all know we have seen of or heard of an inappropriate relationship between a coach and student. We all know of that one "popular girl" who tends to stir up drama in every group, even if she isn't a part of it. We all know that the "new girl" in high school always seems to get attention because there is a question of what group she will become a part of since they have all already independently developed. It is always hard to be smart (especially at math)and not come off as nerdy. Girls "bitchy" claws come out when it comes to guys they are interested in, And lastly, as Halloween is coming up, we all know that the costume goal for young girls is to be as skanky as possible while still looking like some sort of character.
Tina Fey as a producer did a wonderful job of collaborating all of these little aspects into one big hilarious plot. The quotes from this movie seem to never die, and I think it is safe to say that it is a widespread opinion that that the movie is a defining one for our generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)