Looked through this really good website today, going to post parts from this particular excerpt. It acts as a good back up for our use of media imagery, particularly the 1950’s Americana nuclear family

———————————————————————————————————————-

Re-Imagining the American Dream

By Elizabeth Thoman

Like most middle-class children of the 50s, I grew up looking for the American Dream. In those days there were no cartoons in my Saturday viewing, but I distinctly remember watching, with some awe, Industry on Parade. I felt both pride and eager anticipation as I watched tail-finned cars rolling off assembly lines, massive dams taming mighty rivers and sleek chrome appliances making life more convenient for all.

When I heard the mellifluous voice of Ronald Reagan announce on GE Theatre that “Progress is our most important product,” little did I realize that the big box in our living room was not just entertaining me. At a deeper level, it was stimulating an “image” in my head of how the world should work: that anything new was better than something old; that science and technology were the greatest of all human achievements and that in the near future — and certainly by the time I grew up — the power of technology would make it possible for everyone to live and work in a world free of war, poverty, drudgery and ignorance.

I believed it because I could see it–right there on television.

The American Dream, however, was around long before television. Some believe the idea of “progress” goes back to when humankind first conceived of time as linear rather than cyclical. Certainly the Judeo-Christian heritage of a Messiah leading us to a Promised Land inspired millions to strive for a better world for generations to come.

Indeed, it was the search for the “City on the Hill” that brought the Puritans to the American colonies and two centuries later sent covered wagons across the prairies. In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans “never stop thinking of the good things they have not got,” creating a “restlessness in the midst of prosperity” that drives them ever onward.

It is this search for “something-more than-what-we’ve-got-now” that is at the heart of the consumer culture we struggle with today. But the consumer culture as we know it could never have emerged without the invention of the camera and the eventual mass-production of media images it made possible.

Reproducing Pictures

In 1859 Oliver Wendell Holmes described photography as the most remarkable achievement of his time because it allowed human beings to separate an experience or a texture or an emotion or a likeness from a particular time and place- and still remain real, visible, and permanent. He described it as a “conquest over matter” and predicted it would alter the physics of perception, changing forever the way people would see and understand the world around them Holmes precisely observed that the emergence of this new technology marked the beginning of a time when the “image would become more important than the object itself and would in fact make the object disposable.” Contemporary advertising critic Stuart Ewen describes the photographic process as “skinning” the world of its visible images, then marketing those images inexpensively to the public.

the wheels of industrialization began to mass produce more and more consumer goods, they also increased the leisure time available to use these products and the disposable income ~ required to buy them. Soon the well-being of the economy itself became dependent on an ever-expanding cornucopia of products, goods and services…. as media critic Todd Gitlin notes, “production, packaging, marketing, advertising and sales became functionally inseparable.” The flood of commercial images also served as a rough-and-ready consumer education course for the waves of immigrants to America’s shores and the thousands of rural folk lured to the city by visions of wealth. Advertising was seen as a way of educating the masses ” to the cycle of the marketplace and to the imperatives of factory work and mechanized labor–teaching them “how to behave like human beings in the machine age,” according to the Boston department store magnate, Edward A. Filene. In a work world where skill meant less and less, obedience and appearance took on greater importance. In a city full of strangers, advertising offered instructions on how to dress, how to behave, how to appear to others in order to gain approval and avoid rejection.

Granted, the American “standard of living” brought an end to drudgery for some, but it demanded a price for all: consumerism. Divorced from craft standards, work became merely the means to acquire the money to buy the goods and lifestyle that supposedly signified social acceptance, respect, even prestige. “Ads spoke less and less about the quality of the products being sold,” notes Stuart Ewen, “and more about the lives of the people being addressed.”

In 1934, when the Federal Communications Commission approved advertising as the economic basis of the country’s fledgling radio broadcasting system, the die was cast. Even though early broadcasters pledged to provide free time for educational programs, for coverage of religion and for news (creating the famous phrase: the “public interest, convenience and necessity”), it wasn’t long before the industry realized that time was money–and every minute counted. Since free enterprise dictates that it’s better to make money than to lose it, the American commercial broadcasting system was born. But it was not until the 1950s that the image culture came into full flower. The reason? Television.

So who needed television? No one, really. What needed television, in 1950, was the economy. The post-war economy needed television to deliver first to America–and then to the rest of the world–the vision, the image, of life in a consumer society. We didn’t object because we thought it was, well, just “progress.”

What Price Progress?

Kalle Lasn, a co-founder of the Canadian media criticism and environmentalist magazine Adbusters, explains how dependence on television first occurred and continues today each time we turn on our sets: “In the privacy of our living rooms we made a devil’s bargain with the advertising industry: Give us an endless flow of free programs and we’ll let you spend 12 minutes of every hour promoting consumption. For a long time, it seemed to work. The ads grated on our nerves but it was a small price to pay for ‘free’ television.” “What we didn’t realize when we made our pact with the advertisers was that their agenda would eventually become the heart and soul of television. We have allowed the most powerful communications tool ever invented to become the command center of a consumer society defining our lives and culture the way family, community and spiritual values once did.”

This does not mean that when we see a new toilet paper commercial we’re destined to rush down to the store to buy its new or improved brand. Most single commercials do not have such a direct impact. What happens instead is a cumulative effect. Each commercial plays its part in selling an overall consumer lifestyle. As advertising executive Stephen Garey noted in a recent issue of Media&Values, when an ad for toilet paper reaches us in combination with other TV commercials, magazine ads, radio spots and billboards for detergents and designer jeans, new cars and cigarettes, and soft drinks and cereals and computers, the collective effect is that they all teach us to buy. And to feel somehow dissatisfied and inadequate unless we have the newest, the latest, the best.

Just like our relatives at the turn of the century, we learned quickly to yearn for “what we have not got” and to take our identities from what we own and purchase rather than from who we are or how we interact with others. Through consuming things, through buying more and more, we continue the quest for meaning which earlier generations sought in other ways — conquering the oceans, settling the land, building the modern society, even searching for transcendence through religious belief and action. With few places on earth left to conquer today, the one endless expanse of exploration open to us is the local shopping mall.

Transcending Materialism

Thus the modern dilemma: While few of us would turn in our automatic washing machines for a scrub board or exchange our computers for a slide rule, neither can we expect the images of the past to provide the vision for the future. We must recognize the trade-offs we have made and take responsibility for the society we have created.

For many today, the myth of “progress” is stuttering to a stop. The economic slowdown of the early P0s presents only the most recent example of the human suffering created by the boom and bust cycles of the consumer economy. But even if some magic formula could make steady economic growth attainable, we can no longer afford it. Material limits have been set by the earth itself. Unlimited exploitation in the name of “progress” is no longer sustainable.

True progress, in fact, would be toward a materially renewable lifestyle that would fulfill the physical, spiritual and emotional needs of all — not just some — of the world’s people, while allowing them to live in peace and freedom. Under such a system, communication’s most important aim would be to bring people together. Selling things would be a part of its function, but not the whole.

In many ways we are living in a new world, and around that world hungry eyes are turning toward the Western democracies’ longstanding promises of freedom and abundance — the promises the media has so tantalizingly presented.

Yet behind the media culture’s constantly beckoning shop window lies an ever-widening gap. West or East, North or South, the flickering images of the media remain our window on the world, but they bear less and less relationship to the circumstances of our day-to-day lives. Reality has fallen out of sync with the pictures, but still the image culture continues.

Author:
Elizabeth Thoman, a pioneering leader in the U.S. media literacy field, founded Media&Values magazine in 1977 and the Center for Media Literacy in 1989. She is a graduate of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and continues her leadership through this website, consulting, speaking and as a founding board member of the Alliance for a Media Literate America (AMLA).

(source  http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article79.html )

—————————————————————————————————————–

6 Responses to “Rise of Image Culture”

  1. fred says:

    at some point can you sum up or give key quotes cos don’t have time to read it at moment,
    thanks

    fredx

  2. Elzie says:

    Fred these are my notes, hope they summarise a little;

    Image culture has taught us to be consumers on a global scale

    The Beginning: In the 18th and 19th century there began the British industrial revolution (lots of hand made practices became mechanised- starting with the textile industry)

    Industrialisation= easier to make things and takes us less time= workers are less skilled with more ‘leisure time’ and the invention of ‘disposable income’

    There became a demand for products because of disposable income and the image industry was in boom (due to invention of photography and print industry) this is when commercial images were invented and thus the birth of ‘consumer education’ (!)

    Advertising was accepted because it paid for ‘progress’ and was ‘educating and instructing the masses’ although this became less straightforwardly educational when the big cats realised advertising= money not public broadcasting and education

    1950’s= television + birth of image culture + ‘progress’

    Television= advertising accepted in the private space / home= adverts taught us to buy

    Advertising taught us to want newest/latest/best by the accumulation of adverts for stuff that we never new we needed/existed and to make us challenge ‘what we have not got’

    NOW: we are in economic slow down because ‘progress’ in terms of a consumerist economy is not sustainable – there are material limits of the earth, it cannot support our current demands let alone more.

    Real ‘progress’ would be a materially renewable lifestyle

  3. Martin says:

    I think that’s a great summing up Ellie, clear and concise

  4. fred says:

    wow !

    that is really good explanation of things and really helps situate Project ‘Shop’ for me, as in why it really makes sense to use the 1950’s imagery, and why us pointing at the advertising, the selling of ideas that we experience today as being a very negative thing or at least something we should question… and ‘Shop’ will do that.

    There are a lot more reasons and associations we can pick up on, it is strange I have been noticing through the research I’m doing that there are so many factors that lead me to be the sort of artist I am and be involved with and have to desire to make the art I do. It is like I keep finding there is historical sociological reasons for why I did the work I did last year or last week… its not about pretending there is a connect or that I am directly inspired by things which I am the more I know of the amazing things that are happen… it really is just through growing up in the social context I have… I guess its a bit like psychology, you just think you are the way you are and that there are or might be reasons but not going to know them or it doesn’t matter but then someone points out a specific reason and it fits and you know its right and it helps you understand yourself.

    well that’s what I’m finding is happening with my artist process…
    for example me not making art objects, not being focused on the production of things, it makes sense the UK as a whole has moved away from production to services, communication industry, this is the world I grew up in, this what my dad has always been involved with. That not the greatest example but it does resonant with me because I have made things but my interest has always been in the viewers experience of them, they are talking points or vessels of communication.

    and then there’s just the good feeling that comes for knowing others are interested in things I am and that things can be done!

    So well done martin for finding that and thank you very much for your explanation!
    (this is the sort of dialogue i think we should use the blog for)

    fredx

  5. jackhoneysett says:

    i enjoy the levels of exploitation.

    victorian industrialist
    ‘lets bring all the people to the city to work for us, making products’

    50s Add man
    ‘they have free time from their work, lets fill that with our making them want products’

    modern consumer
    ‘other people make the products, i better get a job selling the products, to get the time off to be able to be sold the products i might want to fill my spare time with’

    ha i think i am better than everyone else?

    please slag this comment with a funnier joke.

  6. fred says:

    no you win