Media Product - Vanilla Twilight - Image Reel

"When Violet Eyes Get Brighter,

And Heavy Wings Grow Lighter,
I'll taste the sky and feel alive again."

Image and Lyric Breakdown:

• When - Clock / Time representation
• Violet - The plant, Violet
• Eyes - My dog, Bailey's eye
• Get - Online Adobe download message
• Brighter - Two versions of the same lightbulb in my room, with altered brightness of lens flare

• And - '&' key from my iPod Touch (took a photograph)
• Heavy - 'Heavy Load' sign
• Wings - Bird in Flight
• Grow - Plant Growing
• Lighter - Feather - as in 'light as a feather'

• I'll - Photo of me
• Taste - Two angles of a mouth tasting a lollipop
• The - 'Highlighted the T, H and E keys on a standard laptop keyboard in red
• Sky - Sky shot and edge of Victoria Mills, Saltaire
• And - '&' key from my iPod Touch (took a photograph)
• Feel - Hand feeling fabric
• Alive - Heart-monitor to represent life
• Again - Cover of the DVD '17 Again'
  

Below is the background image, so you can see what it would look like without the image reel over the top - although, again, I have kept it in the same comic-book style as the rest of the images. It is supposed to represent the song - by depicting a 'Vanilla Twilight'.

Vanilla Twilight - 'Oh, Darling, I wish you were here'.

Images Within An Image

Copyright © 2011 Stefan Van den Bergh

Not exactly related to my media product, but I saw this image and absolutely fell in love with it.

The thought of creating multiple images all hidden within one larger, core image is remarkable. Taking this one as my example, it is a beautiful landscape setting showing mountains, rivers, waterfalls, fields and sky as the core image. But hidden in and amongst the scene are a number of animal faces representing another feature of that core image.

The human face is a predominant land feature in the foreground - you can recognise it from the eye, nose and mouth features proportionately arranged along its length. Cliff-faces are made up of monkey / baboon / gorilla heads - again, made clear by the distinct eyes / nose / mouth features of those animals carved into the mountain walls.

I also see an area of land at the bottom shaped like a bird's head, a rock in the water shaped like a frog, and even clouds in the sky shaped like fish and - I think - a wolf. There even seems to be a section of forest / greenland shaped like a teddy-bear, as well as crocodile features and even something carved into a rock that looks like a dragon's head...

I was toying with the idea of making another version and highlighting all the sections of animals I could make out. But when I started, I realised every section represents an animal, and so it would have resulted in the whole image being highlighted making it less obvious to see the details of each animal. Therefore, I shall leave you to explore it at your own leisure, and consider the characters you can make out. You can see a slightly larger version here.

For me, this is visual communication at it's best. The image is communicating so much about our planet through a very unusual medium; by integrating the animal kingdom into the geographical features of the landscape.

The Lyrics for my Media Product

I have chosen the song 'Vanilla Twilight' by Owl City to base my final media product on.

There is only one key verse that I want to use, however. I will make a storyboard / image reel of literal photographs (in comic style) to accompany the lyrics below:

"When violet eyes get brighter,
And heavy wings grow lighter,
I'll taste the sky and feel alive again."

Night-time Photoshoot - Victoria Mills

The main (new) building and Walkway

The old building (over the Tennis Court)

The Fountain and Runway (Lighter Filter)

The Fountain and Runway (Darker Filter)

The Chimney

Yesterday, I was staying over at Victoria Mills, and was captivated by the sights of the chimney and the walkways all illuminated. I took a number of photographs, with the intention of manipulating the strangest one to suit the style of my Comic-book storyboard idea (see below).

The images above are all quite dark, but this was deliberate. I had a go at using different filters on the Camera to get different effects, but found that to tie in with previous entries about darkness, shadow and contrast, leaving the settings to compliment the hour of day worked really well.

The images require careful study to make clear sense of what they depict, due to the intense use of shadow. But by adding in captions beneath each image (Anchorage and Relay, Barthes), I can explain a little easier the key features shown.

The Chimney Base (Original)











The Chimney Base (My Manipulated Comic-Style)

Stereotyping Through Use of Colour

I am going to show you two versions of the same image (both versions I have personally altered to suit this blog post), and then ask you who would generally prefer which version.



But before I do, I will just mention:

John Berger's Ways of Seeing, has inspired this a little. His theories on manipulating an image to create different meanings left me pondering on Stereotypes, and how different versions of images appeal to different target audiences because of preset customs and beliefs. So, I guess, this blog entry is another that should be linked to his theories.





So. Ready?




Take a look:




I'm sure you can guess what I'm thinking about, here.

In terms of Gender, who would prefer which colour??





If you thought 'pink = female' and 'blue = male', you are stereotyping straight away.

Thanks to modern culture and society, it has become an unwritten rule, almost, that anything 'pink' has to be targeting females. And for a man to drive around in the pink version of the Audi R8 Spyder above would be 'embarassing'.

In reality, there is no reason at all why a guy couldn't drive this car. If, for example, they actually liked the colour, they would be more than welcome to purchase this version. However, I can guarantee people would stop and stare, and because of the way people stereotype, a lot would even talk behind that person's back, whispering false accusations and assumptions about their character and sexuality.

It is wrong, and it is unfair.

It is stereotyping.

For the majority of males, regardless of whether or not they like the pink coloured version, they would refuse to buy it, refuse to even consider test-driving it purely out of ... for lack of a better term - fear of damage to their street-credability. Despite the fact owning a car like this would cost near £150'000 and would suggest they are immensely successful and impressive, the colour would leave people wondering, and this could be damaging to that person's reputation.

Similarly, for a girl to drive the dark-blue version would leave passers-by considering their sexuality, too. Consider them to be tom-boys or the likes. Personally, I love that colour and would take the blue version over the pink one, any day. So here is me, ripping the theory of stereotyping clean away; I am a girl, and would not prefer the pink version.

But if it came down to it, and they had a lot of both money and reputation at stake, I reckon a lot of car-buyers would think very carefully about the colour of the car they choose before driving out of the saleroom.

Ways of Seeing - Manipulation of Meaning Through Reproduction

Reference to:

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London. British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.

"... as soon as the meaning of a painting becomes transmittable, this meaning is liable to become manipulated and transformed. It is no longer a constant; It's changed by the camera that moves, by the words put around it, by the music played over it." - John Berger, Episode One, Ways of Seeing.


I'm playing here, so bear with me. This is a section of an image. Little to see, really - it's a covered roadway and walkway; looks to be evening time, if we consider the lighting, and the fact the buildings in the background have lights on.


Then the screen pans across slightly to reveal a little more....

By highlighting the section in red, the eye is automatically drawn to the section of interest. I am also trying to - both physically and metaphorically - highlight the fact that there is an image inside another image. The use of colour is the same - it is the same time of day as the rest of the image, same location, same everything. But by adding in that little bit more, the meaning of the image changes, and the main focus of the image is altered.

The image has gone form being a boring scene of a road, a barrier, a few distant buildings and a pathway, to show something far more interesting; ghostly figures walking toward the camera.


As Berger suggested, by manipulating a reproduction of the original image, I have adjusted the meaning of the image to show one thing, and then altered it again to reveal something else; the first image shows only a small section of the true image, despite being the larger section. By taking away the ghostly figures, the meaning was changed. But cleverly, by putting it back together, the eye is now automatically drawn to the most interesting section in the full image above: now that I have isolated the ghostly figures by highlighting the area in red first, I am instantly drawn to that same area on the original version because I know that the figures are there.

This can be altered even further. I am thinking thrillers and horror movies, where the camera pans painstakingly slowly across the scene - in this case, from left to right to build suspense, as the ghostly figures are on the right. Adding in a low, chilling score to heighten the anxiety and tension would improve it, as well.

Of course, you could then completely spoof the supposed 'spooky' feel of the image by adding in a hilarious score and zooming the camera all over the place. The meaning would be altered, and the genre of the image would change from horror to comedy. Thus, Berger is quite right in suggesting reproduction of imagery is leaving room for manipulation and alteration of the originally intended meanings.

Advertising Tricks and Techniques

I've been looking into how visual communication works in advertising a little more since last analysing the Cadbury's advert. It is an area of the media that is of significant interest to me. I'm baffled by how easy it is to sell an item to the public so simply. They need not even leave the comfort of their own homes - it is all done over the radiowaves or through television boxes.

The fact that people are so susceptable to influence is astonishing. Though, of course, when producing adverts, the creators have a few tricks and techniques which will serve ultimately to improve chances of selling their product; even if these tools mean altering how the audience will receive the advert.

These include :-

Hidden Messages – where producers include a hidden message inside the advertisement, making the advert a little less obvious than most, meaning viewers have to actually think about the ad to fully understand the message. This helps viewers to remember the ad at a later date, giving the potential for the company (and the advert) to spread via word of mouth, as people will talk about how unusual the ad is with regards to getting the message across.

Emotional Response – where producers work with the audience’s emotions to produce a reaction. This can either be through shock, humour, surprise, horror, or another form of emotion. Producers use this to work on the ‘Want / Need’ factors which plague the average human being. Viewers see the ads and immediately feel like they ‘need’ to go out an buy the products. This happens a lot with beauty products, where producers depict the main actresses or actors as being beautiful because of the product, even though it is simply because the producers have picked generally attractive actors / actresses to advertise them. This is self-perception, but ads also use the emotional response technique to advertise health services and life insurance by playing on audience fears of death and illness.

Celebrity Endorsement – where producers have celebrities who appeal to the specific target audience to promote the product. This is clever, because the audience would like to be like the celebrities in the advert, and would therefore be more inclined to buy a product if they believe it appeals to their favourite celebrity. Having a Celebrity as the face of a product also gives that product its own personality (matching the one of the celebrity).


Cultural Iconography

Cultural Iconography refers to creating a character that suits a specific culture and placing them as main characters in an advertisement. These characters become recognisable (icons of adverts). The more adverts they star in, the more they become associated with the product which they are advertising.

As an example, the ‘Honey Monster’ is the iconic character for ‘Sugar Puffs’, and has been present in most (if not all) adverts surrounding this product. Therefore, if anyone were to see the character’s face, they would immediately be able to recognise where the character is from and will associate him with ‘Sugar Puffs’.

Similarly, Tony the Tiger is an iconic figure recognised for his inclusion in the ‘Frosties’ cereal advertising campaign. Nowadays, most children in Britain could probably identify a picture of him if they saw one, and would be able to associate his character with the cereal he advertises. When using icons to promote a brand, producers also like to have a memorable slogan which that character says at some point during the advert. Sticking with ‘Frosties’, Tony the Tiger’s slogan for the cereal is; ‘They’re Grrreat!’. Therefore, if anyone were to hear this, they could most likely trace it back to the advert for ‘Frosties’, because this is where it originated from.

However, it cannot be forgotten that these are culturally affected. A person in Britain could easily identify these characters because they are British characters for British products. Should an image of Tony be shown to an Egyptian or an American, for example, they would not be able to recognise the character as an iconic figure, because their culture doesn’t have access to the product he is advertising. Therefore, he would not affect them the same way he affects British people.

Many times, the characters in adverts are actually stereotyped. This is probably because producers only have a matter of 15-30 seconds to get their message across, and using stereotyped characters would make it easier for viewers to understand the meaning of the ad within the time limit it has to broadcast.


Structure and Form

When it comes to designing an Advert that is to be displayed on Television, there are a number of different structures and forms that the producer can use to get the advert across to its target audience. These include :-

• Narrative – where a producer has created an advert with the intent of it telling a story whilst advertising.

• Series – where a producer has created a series of adverts for the same company with the intent of creating an ongoing saga – examples of this would be the BT Adverts, the Nescafe Coffee adverts and the Daz ‘soap’ series.

• Stand Alone – where a producer has created an advert not with the intent of creating a series, but which tells its own story within the ad itself – almost like a mini-film. An example of this would be the Guinness Advert.

• Animation – where a producer has created an animated advert, rather than using filmed footage. As an example, the new N-Power advert includes a mini clip created by ‘Wallace and Gromit’ creator, Nick Park.

Benjamin - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Reference to:

Benjamin, W. (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction: Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung.

After reading the essay (translated into English, of course) as part of the core reading for this module, there was one paragraph that really stood out for me.

"Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership."

It is really quite remarkable, just how much a piece of artwork is worth in its original form.

Because of the ease in modern society with which works of art can be replicated and reproduced, the value of the original piece is significantly boosted. Mostly thanks to educational trips throughout my time at school and college, I have been to many different Art Galleries and seen original pieces strung up in all their glory, taking pride of place on the walls of ancient buildings. Free for everyone to admire from afar - staring in through glass cases or leaning over rope-barriers.

And these pieces of art are so heavily guarded - night and day. The older the piece, the greater the security. An awful lot of money goes towards installing state-of-the-art security equipment and there are nightwatchmen to guard the building out-of-hours. All due to the fact the pieces inside the building are originals. They are the truest, realest versions. Real paint, real canvas, real pencil, real crayon, real clay or stone or metal or ice or whatever is used to sculpt, these days.

It is fair enough to say that, outside those buildings, there will be an unlimited number of copies. All illegimate, all fake, but all looking damn-near exactly the same - and people wouldn't pay even a tenth of the price for those as the originals cost. So, for all intents and purposes, you can get a piece of priceless artwork for tuppence and hang it on your wall at home to admire it - rather than trekking nationwide to glance for a minute at the original through a glass box before being hurried along by rushing tour-guides.

The problem is, the copy might look exactly the same - right down to the tiniest of brush-strokes - but it isn't the original. The value instantly vanishes; the exact same piece of work is suddenly effectively worthless, not priceless.

So here, you weigh up worth in terms of physical monetry value against the knowledge of owning a duplicate version that is easily accessible. Would you rather have that version there, despite its lack of payout upon resale, or are you willing to pay bus / train / taxi / plane-fair to get to the only Gallery that houses your particular artwork piece ??

Walter Benjamin is right - there is nothing quite like the original. There never will be. But unfortunately, accessing the original format of anything nowadays is virtually impossible. The age of mechanical reproduction is a god-send for people who want to access artistic pieces but would otherwise not have had a chance, because they, at least, can still enjoy looking at the piece despite it being a duplicate of the original. Of course, if you're a multi-billionaire and can afford to buy out the museum / gallery housing your favourite exhibit... well, you don't need to worry. You're the luckiest person alive, because you have the one piece that people will pay millions for. But for the rest of us, duplicates keep us in the cultural loop. And I, for one, am happy about this.