Week 6

“It is clear that many young citizens of this digital and global age have demonstrated interests in making contributions to society. Yet the challenge of engaging effectively with politics that are linked to spheres of government remains, for most, a daunting prospect” (Bennett, p 1).  This immediately put me on the defense for some reason, perhaps the issue isn’t the youth and the way they engage; perhaps it the old school methods still being used in politics; this was what immediately came to mind. As I pushed on through the piece I discovered that Bennett made some interesting points in regard to the presence of a disconnect between youths and politics. For example he states that, “The pathways to disconnection from government are many: adults are frequently negative about politics, the tone of the press is often cynical, candidates seldom appeal directly to young voters on their own terms about their concerns, politicians have poisoned the public well (particularly in the United States) with vitriol and negative campaigning, and young people see the media filled with inauthentic performances from officials who are staged by professional communication managers” (Bennett, p1). If the youth witnesses disgruntled adults especially adults whom may be their mentors, parents or educators; they will obviously feel “put off”. But I think Bennett really hit the nail on the head when he references inauthenticity. This is not only a huge turnoff for youths but for all individuals in general; I just feel as though sometimes the younger generations are more apt to show how put-off they are by the behavior.
The primary issue in my opinion is a connectivity issue. We live in an age were we can engage and disengage so quickly, literally at the touch of a button. We can search, join conversations, delete conversations, leave conversations and follow and un-follow each other literally at the click of a button. We have become obsessed with instant gratification, we do not want to have to wait for anything and if we do not relate with or take anything away from the content being shared; we are very quick to dismiss it. This would certainly cause disengagement numbers to go up in the politics arena.  Bennett goes on to mention, “managed environments”; this in my opinion is another huge disconnect. There seems to be a huge movement in which the youth are wishing to move away from being “managed”, they are exploring more creativity, more business independence and as a result. I feel as though the managed structure that they are encountering on the political platform is a deterrent, they do in fact like Bennett notes appear to view politics as inauthentic.
Per Bennett, “A key question thus becomes how to nurture the creative and expressive actions of a generation in change, while continuing to keep some positive engagement with government on their screens” (Bennett, p 2). I feel as though the only way to do this is to allow younger generations to feel. By this I mean, they need to be approached in a way that makes them feel as though their input and opinions matter, they need to feel as though the messaging delivered to them is in fact genuine and they need to feel that change is a reality. There is nothing wrong with old school methods, in fact in my opinion they build a strong platform in many arenas; however in today’s digital world engagement is what creates a following and a connection. I feel personally as though that’s what many individuals are seeking, especially when they log on.


Bennett, L. W. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 1-24). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Week 3

Well hello organizational confusion! Initially I had to take a step back and re-read sections of this chapter multiple times, truth be told that I am unsure if I have fully grasped it. Luckily it had diagrams, without them I fear I would not have made it through to this assignment. Fortunately after some time I believe I have at least grasped enough to answer the above questions. The actual video was much easier to follow, the speaker was not boring or monotone, the subject matter and the relation to what he was saying made sense and it was just the right length to keep me interested.

In terms of tools and techniques being put into practice, this was done via multiple resources such as images, graphs, diagrams, flowcharts, arrangements, classifications etc throughout the chapter. Kress and Leeuwen dive deeply into the aforementioned, however, it was in the section Embedding that I became the most interested as it essentially speaks about the makeup and classification of imagery and the complexity of an image. An image is provided of five children, different genders, different ages, and different ethnicities. All huddled around one another and a globe. This image is essentially more than just a cute snapshot of some children with a prop. There is a story that is embedded, that could perhaps be read in different ways. However within that reading process is a classification process. As a photographer I have never really thought about this. I have always thought about the ways that an image may be translated or in some cases I have shot a particular image to send a very direct message; however I have never thought about the actual classifications that an image may hold. According to Kress and Leeuwen there are a number of markers that compose the image, covert taxonomy, analytical processes, possessive attributes, symbolic attributive process and transactional processes. Broken down in the following context.

“Covert Taxonomies are often used in a variety of advertisements, where the photographs may, for instance, show arrangements of bottles that represent the variety of products marketed under a brand name, or arrangements of different people who all use the same product” (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 82). If we look at the image the five children represent covert Taxonomies. Further, the image is broken down when we see each individual attribute of each child in comparison to another. Per the Embedding section in chapter three these analytical processes and possessive attributes,  “create visual concepts of their different ethnicities” (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2006, p.108). In addition the images through the classification processes also explores the associations of the children to the globe and the body language of the children. The globe placement was indeed a message; the image shows some of the children touching the globe, which brings the viewers eyes to it. It is no longer just a prop in an image it has built a relationship with the viewer. Just as some of the children with their arms around one another are interacting within the image. We are now drawn into their circle.

Green literacy approach I believe could carry over into the translation of imagery as it from an operational standpoint focuses on three concepts being Operational, Cultural and Critical. From an operational standpoint when viewing an image such as the one referenced above we essentially decode which falls under Operational. In addition when classifying or reading an image we ultimately have to analyze, critique and recognized the elements that are telling the story or conveying the message which falls under both Cultural and Critical. The cultural “relies on using strategies to receive and transmit meaning. Developing an understanding of content and context” (Green 1996).  While the critical,” recognizes the socially constructed nature of knowledge and literary practices. Asking critical questions and constructing Alternative perspectives” (Green 1996). These processes can and are used when viewing an image that is sending a message. Ultimately the image of the children and the globe is representing unity of different ethnicities from places all over the world even though they reside in Australia.

For me whenever I am trying send a message or clarify a meaning I tend to do so visually. For work it is often via a series of images, ultimately I am trying to tell a story and not just create a memory. With technology has come an enormous group of people that just “take pictures” many that do not tell a story, many that have cheesy actions thrown and layered over them, many that are for personal fun. For me whether a client hires me or I am working on a personal project, I want a story to unfold. I want it to be embedded and read into.  

I enjoyed the Jenkins video; I find it to be rather interesting that there is pushback in terms of technology and the classroom. I am hopeful that we will dive further into this issue as the video fell short in that area.

References

Green, B.  (1996). "Graphical representation of GREEN's approach to literacy."

Jenkins, Henry. "TEDxNYED - Henry Jenkins - 03/06/10." Online video clip. Youtube. Uploaded on April 13th, 2010. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCLKa0XRlw. February 2nd, 2015.

Kress, Gunther & van Leeuwen, Theo (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.

Chapter 2 - Signs and Symbols

  

I felt that I needed to be able to relate to the role played by either the interactive participant or the represented participant. Not both and yet I discovered that this was not an either/or situation. We each participate as interactive or represented depending upon whether we are providing or receiving information. What was interesting to me is that we are both depending upon the situation and the text in which we are viewing. Interactive participants are described as,” the participants who speak and listen or write and read, make images or view them” (Kress & van Leeuwn, 48). So essentially I would be a representation of this definition if I were in the midst of a conversation, participating in an assignment, or taking in and absorbing information. Yet as a represented participant which is described as, “participants who constitute the subject matter of the communication; that is the people, places and things” (Kress & van Leeuwn, 48). I would be more of an observer than perhaps a creator.

In terms of correlation, if several individuals were to gaze upon a symbol that society has created to play a specific role, perhaps a warning sign. All individuals would come to the same conclusion in terms of the information we were being given due to the recognition of that symbol. However, in other instances information may be gathered differently and interpretations could vary significantly. Many of us have grown up being told that we have strengths and weaknesses especially in regards to academics. From teachers, to counselors to parents and tests we are picked apart. Some have been labeled math and science while others are labeled as creative. In reading this chapter, I have to say that perhaps it really isn’t that any single one of us has a weakness, perhaps we are not utilizing or being given to tools to translate, describe and retain information in a manor to which we can relate to. 

As a creative, or creator of sorts I often put a lot of thought into a project; especially in terms of stylized shoots. They each have a message that I want to convey, a topic that I want to bring forward. Yet while my message is often translated within the parameters of which I was hoping; there are always those few who do not “get it”, “see it” or “translate” it in a way that I would deem appropriately. In the past that has frustrated me. However after reading this and after reading others journals; I feel more open to others interpretations of my work and the messages I am sending. I can’t help but to think that when I am on the interactive participant side; I need to be more open to individual’s translations. I may just gather inspiration or new ideas from them.

Resources

Kress, Gunther & van Leeuwen, Theo (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.