As I'm digging further into Nakamura, I'm finding a lot of ideas that I really like, but I think some of them are overshadowed by her perceptions on race and how it is interpreted in digital/visual cultures.
In Chapter 3 (Social Optics of Race), Nakamura begins an interesting analysis of the iPod and how it's design and advertising reflect a product's integration into popular culture. The iPod commercials depict black, silhouetted figures against colorful backgrounds, which according to Nakamura, allows the potential user to put themselves into this character's shoes. I remember when I first saw those commericals, the very same idea popped into my head...that could be me! Although I wouldn't be going quite as crazy, and my selection of music would have been quite different. This "negative space" that the image provides is a powerful example of how a blank image can project a visualization of one's self. It definitely worked on me, even though I had purchased an iPod before those commercials came out.
She also makes some great points about "flattening" of data, and how "spatial wandering" lessens the need for an author to direct the media experience. I also thought her Manovich quote on how "random access is symptomatic of the 'decline of the field of rhetoric in the modern era'" made for a great discussion of how the usability of the iPod interface was changing the way we approach new media.
However, just when this chapter started to get interesting, Nakamura begins to describe how these images of black, dancing silhouettes depict black people dancing "because, as in the Matrix trilogy, black people dancing visually signifies desire that the white body cannot feel and cannot express visually." I think it's extremely presumptuous, and I have no idea where she gets her grounds for that argument. I felt the same way about her characterization of race in the Matrix. To me, it seems like you could pick apart any movie or advertisement and make connections with race. Race is everywhere in the online and visual world today, but she makes it seem like it's this hidden secret that we need to watch out for.
I'm just having a hard time making the race connection with digital and visual images in this book. Like I mention earlier, she has some great ideas, but the hardcore race factor she keeps throwing in makes it difficult for me to appreciate the good qualities of this book. I'm wondering if other students are having this dilemma as well...
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Right on, Jon. I had the same thoughts as you about Nakamura's arguments - they're not well fleshed out and often seem unfounded and under-researched. I think she introduces terminology and concepts in very casual ways, doesn't really define or explain them, and then barges on through with her reasonings. I get lost.
But how funny was it that she used the word "mojo" in regards to black people? As in, "They have it, and whitey wants it." I totally giggled. Of course she's right - I love me some mojo.
Jon, I also struggled with the idea that Nakamura might be stretching with her commentary on race. I mean, to postulate that Apple is using "black silhouettes" to show us white people that we, too, can have mojo? Come on. But later in the book, she includes a quote from Rosalind Petchesky that really made me think about why we need to look at the way we see race: "The problem with seeing as a way of knowing is that it creates a distance between the seer and the seen that translates into an uneven power relation between the knower and the known" (157). I guess the way I interepreted this is that seeing isn't necessarily knowing - there is room for multiple interpretations. And it's important to consider these multiple interpretations, as each interpretation may have some serious ramifications. As much as I think that Nakamura makes some weird claims about race in iPod commercials or in The Matrix, she does have some value in giving us another way to "know" through seeing.
Thank god. I thought I was going crazy. In my post, I'm very careful to say that maybe it's just me, but I don't think it is. I feel like she is using "this is clearly that" arguments, and the connections seem oceans apart. I had the most trouble seeing "insert yourself into the black space" as negative. Isn't identification with other ethnicities a positive thing? But, I feel so racist saying so...
Jon, you said it perfectly: "However, just when this chapter started to get interesting, Nakamura begins to describe how these images of black, dancing silhouettes depict black people dancing "because, as in the Matrix trilogy, black people dancing visually signifies desire that the white body cannot feel and cannot express visually." I think it's extremely presumptuous, and I have no idea where she gets her grounds for that argument."--I completely agree! As I read this part of Chapter 3, I underlined that exact quote and penciled in a big ? in the margin. Here we are reading about the different ways race is manifested in our visual culture--films, advertising, images, other--to better understand the way we project our preconceived notions of race in media and technology, and she basically states (unless I'm misreading it) that the iPod ads work because white people can't dance, but we all wish we could. I can't dance at all, and I do wish I could because I have a beautiful fiance who has on just a handful of occasions (she knows I hate to) lamented the fact that we didn't get to dance...because I can't. But I've never attributed it to being white. It's my feet; it's their fault.
I agree that Nakamura stretches her commentary on race at times.
Post a Comment