Paper Rough Draft

Patriotism in America is a very personal idea. Everyone wants to be patriotic to America, but differ on how they view their own patriotism and patriotic acts. For a research project, I chose to implement this patriotic theme and overlay it over our discussions on transgressive signs and symbols. I thought that connecting something that seemed completely point of view based and something that everyone shares a connection to would lead to interesting results. But in order to find the needed data, I would have to interview many people to get their sides of the story.

The war on terror has led many to question our deepest faiths about being American. It has come down to the individual interpretation about what it truly means to “support our troops” and if the signs that reverberate this message are transgressive in view or not.

Many of the signs and symbols found in public parks around the Boston area in Massachusetts have really hit home with the war effort. The place is literary covered in signs protesting and supporting the war and troops. The thing is though, while many are just bumper stickers or lawn signs, many of these have been placed on road bridges, tacked onto trees, and graphitized on concrete walkways. As Tyler Garrat told me, “I’m fine them expressing their opinions, just let them do it on their own soil instead of places we all have to walk through.” It seems that people will have their own opinions about anything, but when someone that’s expressing themselves is doing it on public soil, people will complain no matter what. Some people have no problems with what others do on their own turf, but as James Stone put it, “I’m really for the war, so I have no problem with these pro-war signs in my neighborhood. I just wish some people would stop criticizing them.”

It seems that there really is no true form of transgressive sign. A sign that advertizes a point of view on public land, for example; “Support Our Troops,” can have many means, only some of which are transgressive to some of the people reading it. It is human nature to think about something different from someone else, such as Chris Darling’s “All about giving them our thanks for protecting us” interpretation of the sign compared to Derek King’s “I feel that we need to give them more freedom to bomb those terrorists.” Two completely different points of view down to the basics, yet those three words remain the same, intact, and still being placed in open, public areas of land. Transgressive signs on public land are only an idea, not an actual object.

After seeing a lot of these types of signs and symbols around, and after the discussions about transgressive signs in class, I wanted to see if these would in fact have the same effect on the people. The interesting part for me however, is that these signs portray the idea of patriotism into the discussion. In class, there was never any talk about something bringing everyone together, and seeing the aftereffects of 9/11, this seemed like a suitable candidate for such an endeavor.

Through my research, I decided to concentrate on two types of signs and their effect on people passing them by. The first type of sign can be described as pr/con war. These signs were designed to promote the war in the Middle East in either a positive light or negative light. Some of the many examples I came across included such sayings as “Democracy by Example, Not Force,” “Smart Diplomacy Not Smart Bombs.” While vague, the point most of the time got through as to what each sign was trying to talk about. Over the course of the summer semester, I went out and interviewed many people who were walking in parks and glancing at these signs. I tried to gather information from as wide a background as was possible, meaning that most of the research was conducted in large towns and Boston itself.

The interviews that I did receive regarding the pro/com war posters seemed to indicate that most of the people in the Boston area are against the war. When I tried to ask Melissa Corragon about why she felt so strongly against a pro-war sign in the public park, she responded with “we had no right going in! These signs are put here by oil companies and their bought-off government lackeys. If I was on charge around here all these pro-war signs would be torn down.” The signs are really just a visual expression, and most disregard what they are trying to say. People have so many built in passions and beliefs about the war that really these signs are just a way for them to express themselves.

The other type of sign that closely follows the war that I checked out were the pro/anti troop posters. From looking at my notes regarding the pro/anti war interviews, I had come to my own conclusion that again there would be a split along the same lines as the previous set of data. I couldn’t have been further from the truth. While researching, I noticed that I was coming up with almost no one that agreed with the few anti-troop posters. I was intrigued by this fact, especially when asking Melissa Corragon who was very anti-war. She gave a response that I was not fully prepared for coming from her; “I might hate this war, but you have to stand up for American’s who are putting their lives on the line for others. I don’t think this war is legitimate, but we cannot condemn our own troops who are only doing what the politicians have told them to do.”

The most popular sign that I came across was the well known “support our troops,” slogan. While this seems simple enough, many meanings can be discerned from it. In fact, this slogan has in retrospect, become one of the most talked about and controversial signs since the war started. The reason for this statement is that everyone seems to have a different opinion about what exactly those three words are meant to mean. Just glancing at the phrase, one would assume it was just a statement to thank our troops or give them supplies. But the reality of the situation is that everyone has a different perspective on the situation. This sign, like so many others, was transgressive because of that point. My overarching questing seemed to shift at this point, for while people knew if they supported or didn’t support the war, some of the signs seemed to confuse them. I keep coming back to this example, but it is the point I am trying to make, “Support Our Troops” is one of, if not the most popular war sign around. The issue however was not if people agreed to the sign, but whether they understood what it was actually trying to convey.

When I first started my research, I planned on finding many signs to illustrate my argument that both pro and con war/troop signs were transgressive. Studying my data, I realized that what I was truly trying to find was not if the signs were transgressive or not, but rather if the intended audience understood what they were being shown. From the data I collected, I found it rather difficult to place my finger on any particular answer as to whether the signs are capable of being called transgressive. As I’ve stated before, I do not believe that any of these signs can truly be called that, as the points of view that people have when reading them have already been predetermined. I had to first make sure that I had come to the correct conclusion, thus I created a new question in which to interview people with. Did you have any prior feelings and motives about the war before reading this sign? A simple yet effective question that would hopefully resolve my issue.

My hypothesis was backed up with the results of this question, as many who answered said that the signs, for good or ill, just let them vent about what they had previously believed, and if they saw a sign that they disagreed with, they would become hostile towards it. Ed Fatta even went as far to say “I was against the war to start with, and every time I see a sign faulting the war gives me hope that it might soon be over.” It seems that emotions are raised out of reading these signs. They are just the first step in showing people how they feel about certain topics.

From here, my topic shifted to whether people understood these pro/con war signs. “Support Our Troops” was the logical choice due to the amount of these simple yet effective posters. After interviewing a multitude of people, some of which have been quoted above, I came to formulating a new hypothesis that I wanted to test. Were people really taking into account what pro/anti war signs were saying or were they just glancing and using predetermined knowledge to fuel their thoughts?

Predetermination had already been answered (see above) so the real question was whether people understood the signs, and were there really different points of views surrounding that fact. As can be seen from my research, “Support Our Troops” can be interpreted in quite a few, very different ways. Some can see it the way Chris Darling saw it while others see it similarly to Derek King. It all again comes back to points of view that really make up what people define as transgressive or not.

While researching my topic about the war and if patriotism changed anything, I came to the conclusion that the real question wasn’t what people thought about each side of the conflict based on signs in public parks, but whether the people understood what was written on the signs in the first place. It is a whole different matter when people don’t understand what is written, and so instead, they use whatever prior knowledge to fuel an argument they barely understand. Different points of view play a major role in trying to decrypt messages, even simple messages such as “Support Our Troops” can seemingly become complex. This topic changed its direction drastically, but kept itself together because while people were split about the war, they were not split about our troops, just differently viewed the matter at hand.

Freewrite #6 Evolving Thesis The war has had a large effect on the general populace, with signs being erected in all shapes and sizes in public parks, but pro/con war does not have the same effect as pro/con troops on people’s piece of mind.

When I first started this research project, I wanted to find out what people thought about signs on public property even when there was something that bound everyone to it. This “something” was intended to be patriotism. I wanted to see if people would still care about pro/com war/troop signs in public spaces. From what I’ve personally noticed, the seemingly black and white mentality become very fuzzy and turns to gray when patriotisms and wars come into play. From the research that I’ve conducted, make inquiry changed not at all. I predicted most of the responses correctly, and overall, my first inquiry worked for the entire process.

What I presumed about my subject was that the pro-war signs that people agreed to would also follow the pro-troops, and vice-versa. I however found out that this is not entirely accurate. From the research that I’ve conducted, it seems that most people who are in agreement with the war are also praising our troops for doing their duty. These people have no problem with the signs in the public parks that read “Support our Troops,” and pro war signs. In fact, many have stated that they wish that they could see more, that it would show America that we were as patriotic as we seem. This is the part that I predicted would be the case, and so was no shock to me. The interesting section of my research however is the view the anti-war thinking people had about our troops. In my interview, only a small percentage of those that said they were anti-war, also say that they were anti-troop. The vast majority of anti-war people had no problems with signs that stated “Support our troops” and the like. This was something I was not expecting.

While my topic was interesting to me, it was only partially filling. What I’m getting at here is that I only interviewed a small percentage of people in my area. My home town and the towns surrounding it are very “liberal.” My interviewees all came from this liberal background. This could have defiantly taken an impact on my findings. What I want to find out is if my findings and research match up with America in general. Sure it might work for the small area where I live, but it might have no practicality elsewhere. The issue however is that it is not practical for me to do. It would require a large amount of time and effort, travelling around the country to find signs and then interviewing people who walk by. The closest idea that I can think about is setting up a mock demonstration at Syracuse University. People from all over the country have come to our university, and so could be considered a micro-US. From here, I will have no issues with everyone coming from the same background.

From the research that I have conducted, I would have to struggle to find any noticeable gaps. I had a clear understanding of my topic to begin with, and didn’t leave much of a margin to get off topic. My interviews to straight and to the point, and there really wasn’t anything to leave gaps in. As for connections missing in other sources, there really doesn’t seem to be that many. The sources that I have come across actually flow with my research instead of deviating from it.

If I had to make an argument about my topic, it would go as thus:

People in the United States are split about the war in the Middle East. Signs and symbols are abundant in city parks and other open areas, and people are starting to question them. Those that agree with the war like the signs, going so far so to want more be shown. Those that are opposed to the war want quite the opposite, the removal of these signs and the erection of more anti-war signs. What both sides seem to agree on is that we cannot lose support of our troops that are abroad. The majority of Americans have no problem with troop supporting signs and symbols, regardless about what they think of the war. They would rather see more support our troops signs up that the opposite.

Evolving Thesis

The war has had a large effect on the general populace, with signs being erected in all shapes and sizes in public parks, but pro/con war does not have the same effect as pro/con troops on people’s piece of mind.

Freewrite #5

Sibley presents his sources in such a way that gives his writing a lot of credibility. Due to being an introduction only, he does not go into much depth, but rather creates a very broad ranging theme that people would be comfortable reading and something to familiarize themselves with. After feeding his reader with credible writing, he then goes on to play hisƒDû{ëk»z¦ other hand, and gives them opposing views and analyzes and compares the two opposing forces.

While reading Sibley, it really goes to show that one must do lots of research ÆxPx}iJ½¾before you can write. I plan to really get a large source of knowledge before I start to write anything on my paper. The introduction shouldn’t be too hard as I will summarize what I intend to say, and give examples of key information points that I’ve found while doing the research. This in turn should help raise the credibility level of my paper. I will then go in headfirst to talk about both sides of the issue, giving both sides the needed information to have a valid argument. Then I will close the situation nicely with a conclusion, summarizing the arguments and drawing a comparison.

Commings, Jeff. “Neighbors showcase anti-war signs.” The Arizona Daily Star. The Arizona Daily Star, 23 Nov 2007. Web. 25 July 2009. < http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/byauthor/213015>.

This article is interesting because it focuses on older people and the war, specifically, anti-war signs. The website is an online newpaper and unbiased. It gives quite a few examples to bump its credibility.

Quotes:

“Three words painted on a concrete wall caught Ted Kandell’s attention as he walked past a Brooklyn, N.Y., subway station in 1971.

“END THE WAR.””

This is very simple yet effective. It also was written during a previous war (Vietnam) and is now being used for the current war effort.

“”It’s not an ego thing iJ½¾÷}¼for me,” said Kandell, 46. “I was just at a loss as to what I should do. Sooner or later, I hope everyone who’s against this war will put a sign up.””

This quote shows that even the average person is now trying to do what they think is right. Putting up these signs is there own way of showing their feelings, and what they think is important because they putƒDû{ëk»z¦ the signs up. It’s what others think is what I want to find out.

“”It’s a real gutsy thing to do,” said Murphy, 55, who helped Kandell paint and hang his sign. “You could have all these pro-war people who could come to our houses and retaliate. But not one indiJ½¾÷}¼ividual has hassled me.””

Now this is what I really want. This is the viewpoint of those that put the signs up, something I did not research. This is a major boost because I now have the other side of the story, a story I wasn’t looking into originally.

Bock, Alan. “Afghanistan: All About Oil?” AntiWar.com. AntiWar.com, 23 Mar 2009. Web. 25 July 2009. < http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=14444>.

This article is very different from the previous one. It is all about the US and the oil in Afghanistan. It is very anti-war and extremely biased against the invasion.

Quotes:

“To get that pipeline built, it was/is necessary to invade, quash the unfriendly/uncooperative elements, and install a puppet government willing to do the bidding of the international oil consortium and facilitate building the pipeline and protecting it from saboteurs and other unpleasant types.”

This quotation seems interesting because it is written in an article on an anti-war website. Now, taken out of context, this would seem to indicate a pro-war description. However, in context,  iJ½¾÷}¼it can be seen that this was just one example of things that could of happened, not what should of happened.

“Thus U.S. intervention, far from creating stability in which a puppet government can placidly do Unocal’s bidding, is more likely to increase instability and spark more violent insurgent activity.”

This is good because it shows what people must think
*NJTûûÍ&÷ø6÷†Œabout the war. When they then see signs in parks that are pro-war, these kinds of messages must be going through their minds. And that is what I found out from the majority of anti-war people I interviewed.

“Without U.S. intervention and attempted dominance, there might be enough civil unrest and disquiet to make pipelines transiting the country such a risky proposition that they would not get done, though spreading bribes around among the tribes whose territory would be affected might well ease the way.”

This is but one idea that a lot of É È÷E÷mzQpeople that were ant-war had. If we had just left them the way they were, they’d have fallen apart by themselves and war would have been pointless.

“If the oil companies think such intervention will clear the way for them, however, I think they are profoundly mistaken.”

This is but a point of view. No one can tell the future and to say something like this really brings out the bias. The oil companies had one way of thinking, this guy had another. Neither is right but neither is wrong either.

Formal Paragraphs:

One of the largest debates of the century can be depicted as † Ž ,Ù Jthe US led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. No other single event in the new millennium has stirred so much discourse among the world’s nations. According to AntiWar.com,  “To get that pipeline built, it was/is necessary to invade, quash the unfriendly/uncooperative elements, and install a puppet government willing to do the bidding of the international oil consortium and facilitate building the pipeline and protecting it from saboteurs and other unpleasant types.” A large premise for the war was over the natural resource oil. Many people are firm in their beliefs that oil was the major reasoning behind the invasion. Others however feel quite differently.

When asked for a reason why some people were opposed to the war, they calmly said that they did not think such a war was justified. Many agreed with the anti-war signs found in areas such as public parks, but were reluctant to set up their own. The Arizona Daily Star quoted “It’s a real gutsy thing to do,” said Murphy, 55, who helped KƒDû{ëk»z¦andell paint and hang his sign. “You could have all these pro-war people who could come to our houses and retaliate. But not one individual has hassled me.” It seems that those opposed to the war are scared that the pro-war denomination will become overly violent when coming into contact with them.z–Y¬k¶vpstVfV¶

Freewrite #4

The first online article I have chosen that mirrors my research topic comes from the state of Arizona. The author is named Jeff Commings and he writes for the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, Arizona. As of now I have very little to work with about the author’s background and beliefs, however, he did leave some contact information at the end of his article that I might use at a later date. The title of his piece is “Neighbors showcase anti-war signs.”

Based upon the article in question, it seems that the intended audience is the lower to middle classes. The picture shows a grubby man with a makeshift sign behind him, something that would put wealthy upper class people off entirely. What I think he is trying to do is to connect with the largest group, bringing the issue of the war down to a level that is very close to home for a lot of people. Another interesting fact is that the article repeatedly refers back to the 70’s, indicating that the target age is around their 40’s and 50’s, people who can still remember the 70’s firsthand.

The website is an online source of the Arizona Daily Star, so it has correlations with a news agency instead of something such as Yahoo or AOL.

The article was written a couple of years ago, and so more modern feelings about the war are present. However, this is a good example to see how the war has shifted our opinion about the legitimacy of the conflict. Also, it was written when another president was around, and so public feelings were radically different than they are currently.

My second online article that I want to present is from the website AntiWar.com. Just from the website, we can see that there is going to be bias when reading about the current war. The article is called “Afghanistan: All About The Oil?” and was written by Alan Bock back in March. Alan Bock has written numerous articles for AntiWar.com, including “Will the Next President be any Better?” “Meek Oil,” “Empire at the End of Its Rope,” and “resignation Setting In?” From looking at a few of his other works, I have very large doubts that he will be able to write anything about the war without being overly biased against it.

It seems to me that the majority of people who access this website are those that oppose the war. AntiWar.com itself is all about the negatives of the war, and so I believe that people who are also against go there to read what others have to say. From looking around the website, I can’t come to any real conclusion about which audience they are trying to reach out to. The only real one I can see is anyone who is opposing the war effort.

The main purpose of the website is to show people viewpoints and news about the war and how it is bad. A quote from the website itself states: “Your best source for antiwar news, viewpoints, and activities.”

This article should be taken with a grain of salt because of the nature of the article. It was found on an antiwar website, and the author has written many biased article in the past. If anything, it can be read as a certain viewpoint on the war in Afghanistan, but nothing else. Even if there was real news, it has been twisted into something that can portray the war as bad and unjust. The information is current, it’s just not credible.

Both of these sources have one thing in common, and that is the war on terror. However, one came from a news website that tries to depict events in an unbiased way, while the other came from a website in which it was very biased against the war. They are so different that there isn’t much that came be compared. If I was to go with either of these two, I personally would pick the first article, because the second is so overarching in its bias that I see no point in reading it because what real truth is left? It’s just one person’s point of view and that is not what I came for.

Questionnaire

Due to my research project, most of my research will be conducted via interviews of people around the signs that my project is based upon. For this to happen, I will do a random search so as to not be biased to one point, and to also simulate a real population. What I am going to do is ask these people some simple questions about themselves, where they stand politically, and what they truly think about the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the troops.

So, here goes a sample of questions that I am thinking about asking:

Background info

Name:

Age:

Political standing:

Job:

Now, I will ask questions about the needed information

What do you think about the war in Iraq? Afghanistan?

Do you think the war was justified?

Do you support our troops over there?

Why or why not?

Then I will ask them about the signs

Do you think it is appropriate to display this sign in a public park?

Why or why not?

What are your first thoughts when looking at it?

Do you think there would be a problem displaying these signs elsewhere?

Is it going too far?

Do any of these signs change your opinion on the war? On our troops?

I am going to have a basic interview process because I am hopefully going to get a whole variety of people so a more in depth questionnaire wouldn’t be needed. The questions that I have provided above should be enough to get the needed information out of the people I find near the signs.

Freewrite #2 – Patriotic Overlay Formal Sustained Research Essay

One thing that I have really wanted to explore since the start of this class is the patriotism of America and how close many of the items deemed patriotic come to being what we have written about for these few short weeks. I like to walk around my town or go for a drive and one thing that I do see a lot of are tons of pro military signs and symbols, as well as a lot of anti-war signs and symbols. Judging from what we have been taught in this class, it is not unreasonable to state that some of these, not all, but some, are transgressive while others are merely art.

If I am going to actually write a “sustained research argument,” then why not pick something that pipes your interest, and in this case it does. I have an interesting background with this because I used to be very anti-war and anti-military, but have almost done a 180 in terms of my thinking. Because of this, I can see each side of the argument and can talk about why some people think one sides’ message is transgressive compared of the other, and vice versa. My primary research would of course be visual, as a picture can speak a thousand words, and there are some very colorful eye catching examples around the area. I could also go out and ask people what they think, especially the extremists on both sides to get their opinions about it.

When it comes to patriotism, I have noticed that a lot of these “public space” ideas sort of become gray instead of black and white. Many people would rather come off as being patriotic rather than complain about a sign or symbol that has appeared. It’s one of those things that we just haven’t covered in our reading yet. Where does the line go when thinking about more than just ourselves? Without people being patriotic, it would be hard to hold such a place as the USA together, and then no one would really care about public space or not.

I wouldn’t want to argue the points that each side makes, but rather to try and understand each sides reasons for why a certain pro-war sign is transgressive, or why an anti-military sign could be transgressive. It really comes down to the individual person and their ideas about what is considered appropriate and what is not.

I also want to talk about where a lot of these signs are being put. I think everyone has seen by now the bumper stickers saying “support our troops” and whatnot, but those are on private property. What I like are the extremes that I’ve seen that have been erected on private land and how mild the public signs seem in comparison. There is definitely a difference about what is being said about both sides of the topic on public and private areas.

From what I have stated above, I think that this could become a really interesting topic to explore deeper. It takes our class to the next level by adding a “patriotic” overlay that blurs the definitions of transgressive we have come to terms with, and how people react to it.

*Note: Loss of internet at home thus late post*

What we have here are two pictures of the interior of Wal-Mart. The first image is depicting a small black glass like semi sphere. What it actually is, is a small security camera that can track the movement of the stores occupants. While one is depicted in the image, there are in fact many of these scattered throughout the ceiling of the store to get a glimpse of every angle. The second image that I have attached is the view out of one such video camera. If you look closely, you can pretty much see everything that is happening and who is in it. Some might say that this type of surveillance goes against their rights, but the fact of the matter is that they are in a privately owned establishment where their rights to some freedoms are now void. They are there to protect the store from any damage or thievery that might occur. One thing to note however is the lack of any “camouflage” around the cameras. It would have been an easy feat to conceal them into the ceiling tiles or at the very least create them to match the ceiling color. What they have done instead is to make the cameras stand out as much as possible. While it seems like an odd thing to do, making your surveillance equipment seen, it could also work in another manner. What I am talking about is “deterrence.” The store might actually want these cameras to be seen and thus put a bit of fear into those shoppers that would shoplift. If they can see the cameras, then they know that they are being watched in the first place and less inclined to shoplift in the first place.

The next set of images that I have provided shows an interesting living situation. That is, a gated community. Normally, gated communities are situated in areas where the occupants have a generally larger personal income than the surrounding populace. It also goes with the idea of separate classes, so these people who have higher income don’t normally live near those with lower income. Thus, the gated community is constructed. An example that Syracuse can be made aware of is the one down in downtown Syracuse. As I was walking to Carousel Mall one day, I came across a small gated community in the middle of a particularly rundown section of the city. I was most surprised at stumbling upon this sight, as I thought that pretty much all of downtown was starting to become really rundown. I’m afraid I don’t have any pictures of the gated community I am talking about due to not being in the Syracuse area currently, but it really sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the surrounding architecture. It really gives of the feeling of wealth and power compared to everything around it, and thus “private, do not enter” unless you are fortunate enough to live there.

The above three images are from a large pond in Concord, MA. This pond in particular is called Walden Pond. In my mind it is a very good candidate for jittery space and even a bit of slippery space. By the meaning of slippery, it is completely surrounded by forest except for one side that is open to a road, parking lot, and a house. Apart from those three things, it is very isolated. Even though it is “public land,” it is owned by the town of Concord and thus certain restrictions have been put into play. While you can swim there, you can’t bring anything else except maybe a small canoe. Fishing, etc. is considered a punishable offense and will be reported to the Concord Police. While all these restrictions make many activates void, there are still a few things that can be done, and so isn’t private, just restrictive. The use of the pond really is just a historic sight, and an occasional outdoor swimming zone, but apart from that, not much really happens with all that space.

Transgressive goes green

http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/commons/ecostorestreet1.jpg

While looking for images that could be considered “transgressive,” I found a very interesting website that takes this to another level. It was all about going green and using green in making strange graffiti. I’ve always had a fascination with the living world, and seeing something like the image I posted made me laugh. As a Bio Major hopeful, this kind of thing really gets down deep in the way they are trying to express themselves. There are no words, no pictures, just visual, real objects. They are suing real/looks real green material to get their point across about the green world we live in.

This project was created by ECO store. I think it fits in really well to the whole transgressive idea, because the project is raising awareness BUT is doing it in public space and therefore not “going with the flow” in terms of doing it there. There is a smaller picture in the corner of the one I posted above showing the same design on a billboard. Now, this is very different than the three-dimensional construction on the street because it is not obstructing anything, and could be the same as thousands of other ads around the world. That is not transgressive. The one on the road however can be classified as transgressive because of where it is and what it creating in terms of traffic and other things.

The presentation of this “green drink” is somewhat intriguing. What they have done is have grass coming out of a container in such a way that it looks like green liquid, thus the “green” in the green drink. But they have also added in flowers to further promote not just the color, but the environmental green as well. Interestingly enough, this all seems to be spooling out of an oil drum, something that would make the ordinary person think that it is toxic. While this all may seem like art, it is an obstacle for those that have to use the space that they have constructed it on, and also an object to raise awareness, not just as an art piece.

It is curious though, where are the boundaries? What constitutes art? What constitutes graffiti? Who gets to decide, the general public or those fortunate to have power over the masses?

Ad’s on Pregnancy

http://www.boardsmag.com/screeningroom/animation/1146/

It took a while to find some form of advertisement that I could really flesh out. In the end, I found this interesting Belgium ad that was released from their Department of Public Health. I thought this would be an interesting one to share because of its oversees perspective on teenage pregnancy. While looking at some of the ad’s that Lynsie posted, I noticed quite a few differences between the American way of portraying teenage pregnancy and that of Belgium. The Belgium ad had absolutely nothing to do with preventing the pregnancy, but rather the consequences of having a child. The difference here was that, while still aiming their ad’s at females, they went about showing everything that happens AFTER the child is born, rather than the unprotected sex and becoming pregnant that most American ad’s depict.

An interesting thing to note is that the entire ad was in the form of a VIDEO GAME! Not even real people where used, thus straining the connection between a real life and a fantasy life. From this point of view you could almost say that the Belgium Department of Public Health wants young women to see the consequences of their actions, but at the same time, it’s all just a game, disconnected from real life, and probably won’t happen to you…

The bright colours also don’t help thing much, for the fantasy world really comes out and the fanboy geeky video game really comes full throttle. It just doesn’t seem that they are taking this idea of teenage pregnancy that seriously.

The reason I chose this article is because from our American standpoint, this type of advertisement just would not work here. But that is our way of thinking. Maybe, in Europe, or Belgium in particular, this could be very effective, but then it is all based on regional ideas and their own public space. In America, not being sexist or anything, but computer game adverts are designed to invoke the interest of guys, not girls. Because this entire ad was in the context of a game, to me it seems they were designing it to get some guy interest, but the “meat” of the message was focused on girls. They tried to fit two birds with one stone, but in the end ultimately failed at both.

This ad might have been much more effective if real people had been involved, because the cyber world has no correlation to the real world. Real world problems should be made aware of by connecting with people on a level most comfortable to them, and to most people, a cyber world is not that level.

Signs and symbols from Carlisle

This statue is used as a symbol because it is an object designed to represent a large organization. In fact, it is a statue of my high school’s mascot, the Patriot. The statue is located right on campus for all to see. It symbolized our school spirit and bringing us all closer together. While the statue is a prominent part of the school, there are many other symbols scattered around, very similar to the picture above. I chose the statue because it was the most “down to earth” feature I know about. It will last as a symbol for many years, while wooden signs and flags fray and diminish over time.

This town sign can act as an index because of its physical properties at the border of my hometown. It tells people driving along the roads when they have hit the town border and thus know where they are. These types of signs are places much throughout MA at almost all the borders of towns. They are great little signs because they are all the same apart from the names, thus making little confusion for the focused drivers.

Clark’s Farm can be depicted as an icon from my hometown. It sums up what many people’s land once used to be and goes back to the roots of the town of Carlisle. People come to it at all times of day to look at one of the best preserved farm houses in the district, to look at history long gone in most parts. It also acts as a symbol to those who can remember when this was the standard in the town.