-Seeing isn't the same thing as looking. The beauty of visual culture is that everyone has a different reaction to various experiences, whether they be "visual," "textual," or "vocal". The concept of intentional fallacy is very interesting in that we can never really know why something was created. So why does humanity insist on constructing answers to "why" the world exists through science and speculation instead of just accepting individual interpretation and meaning (various ideologies based on religion, ethics, politics, etc.)? It seems that without reason and some level of collective agreement that society would fall into chaos. In society, very rarely do groups collectively agree on certain issues unless the subject is understood as truth, or maybe a specific religious doctrine exists that if exempt from a system of beliefs would no longer be the basis for that particular religion. For example, (and this is one that is often used), "Jesus is Lord." Christian theology would falter if this "collective belief" did not exist among all Christian denominations. The same thing works in "visual culture" as said in lecture. We are able to discover meaning in the world, individually, through which collective symbolism may emerge. Such as the cross, a common Christian symbol that many Christians associate with their faith.
Symbolism is a huge part of everyday culture. There are even unrecognizable symbols, ones that exist only in our subconscious.
-Everything contains some level of meaning, if not to the consumer, then to the producer. The chair that I'm sitting in now is nothing but a comfortable ugly-green chair that I, personally, would never own. Someone, however, may appreciate this chair and may label it as having aesthetic quality.
-In a way I feel like we are bound and controlled, not necessarily "owned" but deeply impacted, by society visually. "Lose 10-lbs, look like that hot model on the cover of Cosmopolitan Magazine. Maybe if I quit eating, I could look like her." Though beautifully and digitally designed, such as the Calvin Klein advertisement we viewed in class, this view can offer unrealistic representations (and eventually produce negative ideologies) of women who objectify their bodies instead of recognizing the reality of eventual physical decline and what society labels as "imperfection" that takes place both on the inside and outside of the body. Visual appeal. Here in lies the problem, sexy women with hot bodies have to look better than old flabby women right? The affects can be both positive or negative.
-I'm a sucker for romance films. Is there anything "visually" appealing about them? I'd venture to guess that their "artistic" quality is quite low compared to world-renown artworks such as the Mona Lisa, by Leonardo DaVinci. The story-line, however, could have subjective meaning for an individual viewer, sparking a series of positive/negative emotions because the movie represents the reality of a certain part of their life. It's funny to think we pay up to nine dollars to watch our lives on the "big screen." Unbelievable. I hope this class helps me re-think the visual culture of our world and ignore certain cultural "rules" that society imposes.