Bob Peterson@ONU and the Process of Interpellation

Last night, I had the privilege of listening to Bob Peterson speak at ONU. For those of you not familiar with Bob, he is the writer and co-director of the movie Up, which just won numerous awards. He is also the voice of the dog Dug. Besides Up, Bob was involved in the movies Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and Monster's Inc. Besides being an employee of Pixar, he is also an 1983 ONU grad in mechanical engineering.

For those of you who missed his presentation, you missed an opportunity of a lifetime. Not only is Bob one of the most engaging speakers I have ever heard, he is also quite personable, knowledgeable, and humble. It was simply an interesting presentation that took you through the process of creating a cg film. He also shared some of his voices, including Roz from Monster's Inc. and Dug the dog from Up.

Bob was also kind enough to stick around for autographs and pictures which he did for my wife and me (got an autographed copy of the movie!).

Part of what I want to touch on in this post was how Bob addressed the issue of making meaning through these cgi characters. One of the questions asked at the end of the presentation was about audience and whether Pixar tried to target certain segments of the market. Bob's answer was interesting in that he says that Pixar doesn't try to target audiences so much as tell a good story. In the end, the film ends up appealing to a number of people and each viewer takes away certain elements that touch them in some way. This is classic interpellation where the viewer feels a connection with the characters in a film (or images...) through a process of identification. For me, I particularly was affected by the opening sequence that traces Carl and Ellie's life from the moment of their first meeting to her death. I related to this sequence in quite an emotional way. Perhaps this is due to my realization of how fleeting life is and all the missed moments we have in our lives. I especially see this in my children, now teenagers, and wonder "Where did the time go?"

Images often speak to us in this way. One of my favorites is an image of an old man and a dog sitting on a bench (A larger version is displayed on my images page). We only see the back of the individual, which allows us to put our selves in his place. It gets me thinking about those quiet moments in life and this image captures one such moment amid the business of a day. I also like the way the photographer caught the layers of vertical lines - bench, fence, man, dog, trees, windows - that create a motif. In addition, I like the use of black and white, which simplifies the image and draws attention to these repeating elements. Take a look and see what you think. What images call to you?

Is Truth in the Eye of the Beholder?

For the first journal assignment, I asked students to look at a series of images to determine whether they were true or false. While reading one of the posts, I was intrigued by one of the responses. Here is what was stated:

"Truth" is in the eye of the beholder as far as perception of images go, so while I may see these pictures as "false," others may be firmly believe that they are "true."

I am still trying to decide whether or not I agree with what was said, and I probably won't know until we talk about it in class so I can find out a little more about what the student meant. Part of the issue may lie in the way I entitled the assignment - "True or False." In hindsight, I am not sure if it was the best choice of words. My aim was to have the students examine the images and based on the clues the image offered, decide if the image was real or if it had been faked. By using "True and False," perhaps I added a different layer of meaning in some unintended way. For instance, what may assumed to be truth may not be assumed to be real. I am quite impressed that this student picked up on the wording and thought of the assignment in a different way.

At this point, I am not going to further analyze the statement. After the class discussion, I'll continue this post.

Great Site - Gender Ads

In my search for images to use for the VisComm Issues class, I ran across a website (Gender Ads) maintained by Dr. Scott Lukas. There are literally hundreds of images that are primarily related to how gender (and sex) is used in advertising. The site is a little rough in design, but Scott provides some interesting commentary on the images including background and his thoughts on how such images perpetuate stereotypes about gender. While I do not always agree with his analyses, I respect his interpretations, and hold these differences up as examples of how individual interpretations differ - we all make meaning in slightly different ways.

I also found it interesting to read the page that contains copies of the emails he has received. One person was quite explicit that the site did not use proper research methods. This points to how some people have no conception of research outside of the scientific method. In essence, unless you use a positivistic, quantitative methodology and distance yourself (allegedly to remove bias, which I believe to be impossible), you cannot be doing research. Of course this is an old argument that completely ignores the value of conducting research from a humanistic standpoint. It reminds me of a statement by one of my fellow grad students who had interviewed James McCroskey from the University of Alabama-Birmingham for our class. McCroskey was quoted as saying, "You can do quantitative, or you can do crap." Wow! Let's just invalidate half the research being conducted by other academics with nine little words.

Here is my perspective. Distance isn't everything. Bias is normal and ubiquitous. Getting to know human beings on a more intimate level provides insights that cold statistics cannot provide. Is it the same? No. Is it valuable? In my opinion, yes. To me, the idea that you can fully know something or someone by being a distant observer fully flies in the face of common sense.

Another person was upset that Dr. Lukas even suggested that these images carried any negative connotations. It's just advertising. It doesn't mean anything. Right. These types of responses just go to show how these ideas are naturalized as ideology. If it's just advertising and there are no effects, then why do so many of our youth have body image issues (yes, both male and female) that tie directly to the idealized images used by the media. And for those who care, there are plenty of quantitative studies to back this up. Do your own research and check it out.

That's my rant for now. When you get a chance, check out the images and make your own judgments. Till then...