Cop : animation analysis draft 2

The tale of Cinderella is a story of glamour and envy intertwining, where the story of a girl escaping her hardship to achieve her dream life has been the subject of envy for many in the real world. An adaption of Charles Perrault’s work in 1679 (a period when social ideas were vastly different), produced with Walt Disney own personal 50s-era ideology, “Cinderella” is affected by gender stereotypes, where women’s goals of security and escape still lies with the wedding ring, and were still considered a glamorous dream.

Breaking down Cinderella among the deep structures that are stated by Paul Wells in his book, Understanding animation (2002), Cinderella is an animation that is defined as a visual adaptation of a fairytale, hence, the forms and style of animation that is used lies within those boundaries. To be more specific, it has to carry an aura of fantasy for the story, and did so through the image of the fairy god-mother figure and the talking animals. Along side that, it still has to make characters that are important to the tale, relatable to the audience hence why Cinderella and the step-mother are animated and behave very human-like. It is this mixture of realism and fiction through the medium of different animation style that forms the “formal” genre of animation.  Alongside that, it also has a clear portrayal of what is “good” and what is “evil” through clear visual cues that help indicate who are the heroes and heroines and who are the villains. This lead to the other genre of animation that Cinderella would fit in: political where the story of Cinderella seeks to glamourize that the good is always more beautiful than evil, and that in the end, good always beats evil.

Going into more detail, this separation between good and evil is effectively portrayed through the use of signs and symbolism .Take the image of Cinderella herself, she is usually described as wearing brighter clothing, in many cases , white, a symbol of purity and righteousness. She has beautiful golden locks, with big blue eyes, fair skin, red lips, v-line jaw and beautiful forms. She was all in all the standard of beauty. This kind of symbolism is also portrayed in other characters, such as the fairy god-mother whose old features, roundish figure symbolized her kind and loving nature or the carriage and horses that Cinderella rode to the ball, which carries an aura of nobility and glamour. This syntagmatic relationship in the end forms the glamorous face of the “good” within the story.

In stark contrast to that, we have the step-mother who is considered by many to be the most terrifying villain, yet the most normal among them, having no power or magical ability. She is portrayed as always wearing dark high-neck dresses, with half-closed piercing eyes that follows you, raised eyebrows and a darken aura that spread over her in the scenes she appears, which effects even the backgrounds. Moreover, her pointed chin and big nose reminisce that of an evil witch, yet she always carrier a proper lady-like form. This is a symbol for her antagonistic nature – one who is not only vicious but calculated. She doesn’t need magical power because she is smart and she can take away anything she wants from the protagonist and she plans to take advantage of that every moment she gets. It is this realistic description of the  human nature that make her all the more terrifying to Cinderella and the audience. Then, we have the step-sister , whose  rounded faces and big noses are more of a symbol for arrogance and idiocy and signifies their spoiled nature. This is why they served a more comedic role for the story: “The stepmother’s purpose in the film requires her to be more realistic in design because  she has to be a believable character that you relate to on the level of a real human being.’ The same with Cinderella and the Prince,… The stepsisters, the King, and the Grad Dauke are largely comic characters,” ( Solomon,2015, A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes, p. 61.)

This clear and distinct separation of good and evil ultimately serves one purpose, is that to glamourize the “Good”. If we go back to the start of the topic, the qualities that forms the bases for the genre that Cinderella (the animation)  would be, put Cinderella ( the character ) in the position of glamour , beauty and social status in the view of the audience . Aspects like the way she is animated, her personality and and most prominently , her appearance (the shimmering effects that is seen on her dress and heels literally makes her the physical description of being glamorous ) all constitute to building her as a figure that is enviable. On the other hand, there is the struggle ending in Cinderella achieving the dream and live happily ever after. This then again put her in the position envy for many.  In the story itself, it is her glamorous traits are what had captured the attention of the Prince in the first place. This created envy among her family members. One could even say that this envy has existed even before Cinderella’s appearance at the ball.

If we look back and take Berger’s quote into this context: “Glamour can not exist without personal /social envy being a wide-spread emotion..” so you see a single subject of  envy ( that is Cinderella ) , being placed as the center attention causing mass interest and envy no doubt. The envy are present more clearly within the step-family, where the 2 step sister tried their hardest to fit the slipper, linking back that to Berger: “He lives in the contradiction between what he is and whet he would like to be.”. The sister here doesn’t know what they actually lack. They want to be the apple in the Prince’s eyes yet they lack the proper grace, qualities, and the physical attractiveness that one should have. Instead, they are fed by the glamour which their step-mother had groomed into them which convinced them otherwise

The opposite can be said for real life where Cinderella is adored by her audience, who sees her as representation of a dream life that they want to have. People strive to be their own Cinderella, but we rarely see they’re condemned for that, although it is safe to acknowledge that the glamour of Cinderella can hardly be replicate as it is accomplished by “magical” forces and therefore represent only the idea of it , albeit a noble one ,just like Postrel (2013) explains: “Glamour does not always connect to social envy … as many of the resentments and hostilities of true envy are missing from glamour….glamour maybe an illusion , but its rarely a mean or vicious one…” (Postrel V, 2013, The power of Glamour, p.31-p.32). This type of envy would be along the line described by Christian Hughes (Hughes, C; “The equality of social envies” –“ Sociology” vol.41) as benign and emulative envy. The idea of the competing forms of envy once again present itself as a counter to Berger’s point of view. A further counter would be to applied Berger’s point of people becoming fully conscious of the contradiction, and in turn participate in the overthrow of the establishment that created it (1979, Way of seeing) to the context of the step-family . By this definition, It is the step-family that should rise up to overthrow the governing system ( that good always trumps evil, being beautiful is more desirable than ugly ) and to present them with more equal abilities , let’s say in this case, they are not treated as the bad guys by their physical appearance ,which of course obviously would not work at all from a moral standpoint.

Having said all of this , it should come as little surprise  that the modern corporation would take advantage of people’s desire to become their own Cinderella, presenting themselves the fairy godmother who would bestowed on masses the “magical transformation” they so desire, through magic like “fast fashion”- things that would follow the same trend and style of high-end products but on a much larger scale and lower prices, hence people who envy can compete with the enviable, which would be along the lines of  notion supported by Gundle: Berger J, 1972 , Ways of seeing , p. 131 ). And truly, what better figure is there to represent this than Cinderella and her tale.

COP : Triangulation 2nd draft

Within the art world, few have influenced and revolutionized our view art and the world. Among them is John Berger, with his famous text “Way of seeing”, published in 1972. Berger was born in 1926 to a couple of immigrant workers from Hungary. His father served in WWI and he himself served in WWII, and later on studied in Chelsea School of Art in London. His working class background and his participation in war had major influence on his political and cultural view as an art critic, thinker and novelist. Examples would be an essay titled “ Permanent Red”, demonstrating his political affiliation. In art, he is a Marxist Humanist and was critical of western ideas like modern art. In politics, he donated to the Black Panther movement, and had refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union only until the later part of the Cold war. He had produced several writings that cover a range of stimulating and politically controversial subjects from the alienation of English urban life to migrant workers turning to the contemporary style of their European counterpart. This is where his most famous work, “Ways of seeing”, comes in.

Written and published in the 70s, at the height of the cold war and the counter culture movement, as a direct response to Kenneth Clark’s “Civilization” - a 1969 TV series on Western art, architecture and philosophy. Based on the premises that what we see are dictated by our knowledge and beliefs, “Way of seeing” (1972) was a critical jab at western culture aesthetic and capitalist publicity and demonstrated Berger’s political and social ideologies. Perhaps this was highlighted best in this quote from the book, which will be the main subject of today’s writing:

“Glamour cannot exist without persona| social envy being a common and widespread emotion. The industrial society which has moved towards democracy and then stopped half way is the ideal society for generating such an emotion. The pursuit of individual happiness has been acknowledged as a universal right. Yet the existing social conditions make the individual feel powerless, He lives in the contradiction between what he is and what he would like to be.” ( p.148 )

The key terms pulled from this are “Glamour” and “Envy”, which will be the 2 main ideas that occupied most of the essay. A general break down of this quote would be that glamour by its nature relies on envy to simply exist, and  in the commodity culture / capitalist economy, advertisement and publicity push you to achieve an ideal life when the reality is that only the few privileged can. This is a perfect environment to generate envy, and in turn, fuelled the idea of glamour, which itself then create even more envy. This cycle is later on supported in the more contemporary works from Gundle and Castelli (2006,2008), but also argued against in some aspect by Postrel (2013) and Hughes (2007), whom works will all feature in this essay.

Perhaps it is best to put Berger’s quote into context, as part of a bit on modern publicity and how “ publicity is the process of manufacturing glamour” (Berger, 1972, p.131). Within this, he compared the evolution from oil painting to modern publicity, how it had change from a form of product that consolidate and enhance one’s own value to a product that more or less makes people feel less then they should, then suggest that those who have more are better, in doing so, push the spectator to achieve it by purchasing the product that it is selling. In his views, publicity is essentially a product to day-dream, where “the interminable present of meaningless working hours is balanced by a dreamt future in which imaginary activity replaces the passivity of the moment. In his or her day-dreams the passive worker becomes the active consumer. The working self envies the consuming self.” ( Berger, 1972, p.149).

This is where he turns back to dissecting the notion of glamour. In Berger’s view, it is a modern day invention made by the process of creating social envy and day-dreams among the masses. Stephen Gundle, in his book “The Glamour system” (Gundle, S and Trini Castelli, C; 2006 ) linked it’s history to the periods when aristocracy was eroding and the aura of its power were being reproduced for commercial and social ends. Glamour then became in the bourgeois society something that can be earned, and only grew ever more as the idea of desirability changes with the advance of technologies to something that is familiar yet allusive , bounding itself to only the wealthiest, who then were considered “glamorous” to ensure their dominance in the new capitalistic economy. This “glamour” of course, is fuelled by the envy of the other classes who was also introduced to idea of glamour being achievable, yet lack the proper means to achieve it at that point in time. To refer back to Berger, this idea is supported through these quote:s “Being envied is a solitary form of reassurance. It depends precisely upon not sharing your experience with those who envy you” (Berger, J ,1972, Ways of seeing, p.133). This is quite apparent as history have shown how Capitalism has empowered and grown by advertising itself to be the tool of achieving these desires i.e “The American dream”

The connection between publicity and the notion of glamour, envy and other points in Berger’s quote becomes even more apparent, as Berger continue to criticise the idea of “you should be like this” that is propelled through the use publicity, of eliminating one’s free will to make their own meaningful decision, masking and compensating it by consumption - a substitution for democracy itself. This is supported by Gundle : “Glamour requires in order to exist , some sense of equality and citizenship, but not necessary democracy” ( Gundle , 2006 , The Glamour system , n.p). In a way, it is this more direct and blunt sense of “equality” that create individual/personal envy, which is what in her work on “Sociology” (2007), Christina Hughes acknowledged that is inevitable and is a part of universal psychological traits. (Hughes, C; “The equality of social envies” –“ Sociology” vol.41 ; p.5). Combined that with Gundle idea of glamour can not exist without mass involvement, we can draw the conclusion that indeed Glamour cannot be without social envy.

For the most part, Berger’s ideas are reasonable and reflect the reality of society, but as Postrel explains: “Glamour does not always connect to social envy … as many of the resentments and hostilities of true envy are missing from glamour”, (2013, The power of Glamour, p.31-p.32). Indeed there should be a distinction between the different sides of envy, between jealousy and admiration. Hughes (2007) acknowledged this fact, stating a research that pointed there are forms of envy that have no effects or can be beneficial to society which are split into emulative envy, when you do not bare the envied any ill will, and benign envy, where it pushes people to achieve what they envy, which create a mobile and dynamic society that continuously thrive to best itself. If we extend Berger’s quote, it says: “Either he then becomes fully conscious of the contradiction end its causes, and so joins the political struggle for a full democracy which entails, amongst other things, the overthrow of capitalism; or else he lives, continually subject to an envy which, compounded with his sense of powerlessness, dissolves into recurrent day-dreams”.( Berge, J; 1972; Ways of seeing ; p.148) .One’s pursuit of personal happiness is a universal right, thereby having something that will push him to become what he wants in order to be happy, bridging that gap between what he is already and what he can be, should be enough justification for the idea of glamour. In a way, Berger’s quote has inadvertently put a limit on this human ability to achieve, an ability that has driven our race since the time of our creation.

Overall, one can split the ideas presented by these writers to both sides of the fence, with Berger (1972) and Gundle (2006) both argue for the connection between envy and glamour and its ties to the darker sides of the capitalistic economy and culture, while Postrel (2013) defends the notion of glamour based more on a emotional aspect, along with Hughes (2007) more neutral and more scientific insight on the matter. Gundle sums it up perfectly when he described glamour as full of oxymoronic qualities. As a progressive and semi-socialist, I can agree upon many of the facts stated by Berger in Way of seeing, but I also acknowledge the complexity of social ideas and the psychology behind it, and would definitely support the notion of having an “glamorous” goal that you can strive to achieve. After all, there’s nothing wrong with having a bit of glamour in your life

OUAN401 - Lecture : Consumerism - Persuasion, Society, Brand culture

Today's lecture focuses on a matter that has been very close to my heart recently : Consumerism, its origins, definition and effects. Before this I've been doing essays on John Berger's Way of seeing , in which heavily features criticisms of Western consumerism and publicity. So what makes it so bad? Well basically , this lecture was more or less the answers to that question , given multiple examples of how the concept of consumerism and capitalism has driven western society into a false sense of happiness and freedom.

But before going into it, credit is where credits due for Richard as he presented a very interesting history behind consumerism. I'd always thought of it as an social idea that just came along when the economy stared growing , but its really interesting to see that it can start out from a person namely : Edward Bernays with the invention of public relations. Since then it has proven so successful that it became very much a norm that people just take for granted nowadays, and with it came a whole series of modern social issues.

With the advent of mass production and the market getting oversaturate with things to sell and buy, its only logical to think that the big companies and corporation would resort to means of "telling lies" to sell their stuffs. Publicity caters to human desire, that is what I have drawn from this lecture and for John Berger : a desire that never cease aka greed , desire to mean something , to prove to yourself that you are the best in the world , a very egotistical attitude to say the least. Coming from my family , we're not struggling by anycase, if anything , I'd say we're relatively well-off . But teachings from both my parents, who both work from the bottom to earn their wealth , has builded me up as a person who is really against over-purchasing on products that are not necessary to one's daily life i.e extra clothes, shoes, electronics,... So even before getting the idea of consumerism , I've already been resistant, albeit on a subconscious level only. As I matured , that resistance only grew as I see people my age around all chasing the meaningless things : the latest ipad, the newest shoes, lipstick , skinny jeans that has tears and make you look like a hobo,.... most of them with ridiculous price tags. On this exact same point , Richard pointed that that is exactly how consumerism control and lie to us. The ripped jeans are advertised as being unique , being an individual , yet now EVERYONE does it, so what's so unique anymore. Same goes for other thing , like the Iphone getting reproduced every 2 years or so as a "new" model , yet people still flocks to it because its cool and everyone else is having it , so why cant I. We dont buy for needs anymore, we buy to please ourselves in hopes of persuading ourselves that we're happy and free. But really , what is free and happiness anymore. I come from Vietnam- a communist country. Sure , we might not have the same level of political freedom as say the US , but I'd considered myself "free" , if there is even such a thing. I've always said that : " True freedom is impossible , because people dont know what to do." usually , due to my standing as a person who values order in society , but having seen all this ,especially with recent US election and Brexit I can honestly say that Im not wrong at all. And to close it off, I think this idea from Sigmund Freud that Richard has presented is the perfect thing to summarise it all : Human instinct is in compatible with the well-being of a society.