It’s okay sweetie, pose for the cameraman

Screen Shot 2015-04-15 at 8.05.05 pm

There’s no doubt about it that as time goes by, we as a society posses different sorts of issues concerning the safety of our children’s innocence and future. And the topic that is raised right now is the debate of what is considered Art, or Pornography. Children are the key to the future, and as parents, bystanders, and daily participants in the public sphere we all control the way in which we see art.

Problems that occur are the media’s affect in which it represents the child, and it’s presence to the public sphere. Furthering controversy as it’s influence on others young and old, are then distorted with many diverse interpretations.

There is a fine line between the definitions of art and porn, but what makes this area so grey is the exposure of children for the use of art. It’s through people’s individual interpretation of what they call art that causes the public sphere to react in negative and or in positive ways to certain the true intentions of art. It’s like everyone has a different definition of what people call music. Some like classical, and call that real music, others might not agree. However this issue of children in the act of “art” and the exposure of child pornography that makes this much similar.

Throughout the years, artists from around the world as early as the renaissance era and the middle ages have been painting, sculpting and creating works of children to present to the audience the wonders, and magnificence of humans and their story. So as you see below, why could they do it then and get away with it? Was it a problem back then, or are we being too sensitive to what is considered art? Answer? Technology and media’s moral relationship with Children.

16065            1902

Screen Shot 2015-04-15 at 8.04.44 pmScreen Shot 2015-04-15 at 8.04.49 pm

Since much has changed during the renaissance and the Middle Ages, both morals and values, and puberty ages have too.

  • 1860 = 16.6 yrs
  • 1920 = 14.6 yrs
  • 1980 = 12.5 yrs
  • 2010 = 10.5 yrs

The ways we view things by the media are different, so why has it become a growing problem? It’s Cohen’s classic text in 1972 that had explained the theory of societies new threats.

Sexuality as we know, and exposure of children in the face of media are now regulated and “Sex sells” let’s face it, sex is in our faces constantly, sex is on our phones, sex is in magazines, and sex is even on the Internet.. Yet sex is disguised as idolised appearances and norms. Influence is everything concerning media, and when children come into the situation people take deep concern to what they themselves are exposed to, and the public around them. Semiotics of art works are viewed in a new lens, and legal measures are taken for the protection of ‘innocence’ and its sexuality is a sense of danger rather than healthy exploration.

Take for example in 2008, May 23 with Bill Henson’s “Art Works”.

It’s a grey area folks, but sadly today corporate paedophilia has grown with the help of evolving technology and the more the media exposes an artwork for shame, so will the public.

Answer within the comment your point of views.

Until next time 🙂



Blurred Truth?

Hello bloggers and welcome back to another week’s blog post hosted by yours truly.. Okay, so we all know there are certain media texts that always make their way down controversial lane and spark themselves quite nasty feedback from the public sphere. With saying that I’d like to nominate the song that lead feminists from around the world into one gigantic meltdown of hot rage: Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke featuring T.I. and Pharrell Williams.

This song for those who didn’t know about it, has been listed for 829 weeks in 21 different charts. Its first appearance was in the French Singles Top 100 in 2013 and the last appearance was in the Irish Singles Top 100 in 2014. The song won numerous awards like the top radio, digital, hot 100, top and R&B song during the billboard awards, whilst also being nominated by other different top music awards such as the Grammy’s (2014) MTV awards (2013), and People’s Choice Awards (2013).

However, what caused many raised eyebrows throughout the catchy phenomenon was the controversial sexist lyrics, and music video. Watch the link below, and carefully listen to those lyrics, deconstruct ‘blurred truth’. You’ll see what the fuss is about.

So why do I think it’s caused such major debate around the globe? Well, firstly there were obviously many issues were raised about the morals and values of women’s rights following the clips presentation. Seeing as women have suffered sexist discrimination over the decades; justice seems to be slipping away all in the four minutes and twenty three seconds.

The catchy phenomenon contained lyrics such as

  • “OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you, but you’re an animal, baby it’s in your nature”
  • “yeah I had a bitch, but she ain’t as bad as you”

Well I don’t know about you guys, but being referred to as an ‘animal’, and a ‘bitch’ certainly turns me off from the song, and clearly others weren’t happy either. Feminist’s from Auckland Law Revue, posted their feedback with probably the best way possible: a parody.

Check it out.

So you can understand the reason why this song of “blurred lines” have caused such global debate. Consequences  come about with any media text and in this case, many were sharing their own opinions of disapproval. The way the text was presented had proven to the  public that not all texts can get away with slandering this touchy topic of Woman’s liberation. The unfortunate reality with this song, is that even though the meaning behind the lyrics/clip had done enough damage, it still has won many awards and praise. However, credit to those who created such a catchy tune. It’s just upsetting to see a good tune followed on with a bad representation through the media, with powerful influence to the public, especially young generations growing up with the pop culture.

So tell me guys, Is it okay to present such derogatory disguised behind it’s celebrities? Let me hear  your feedback.

Untill next time.


Media Monopoly

This weeks blog task revolved around the question: “Does it matter who ‘owns’ the media?” but before I get into this, one must know WHO owns the media.

Lets see what we have here…

Okay, now that we’ve established who’s  in control, how bout we get to a more serious discussion. We all know and can agree that the media has a definite influence on the way we see and understand things. So, how can we trust the people who are in control of such power? Take Rupert Murdoch for example, personally, I never really knew the about the multimillion-dollar man till the phone  hacking scandals case that appeared in England

Okay, now that we’ve established who’s in control, how bout we get to a more serious discussion. We all know and can agree that the media has a definite influence on the way we see and understand things. So, how can we trust the people who are in control of such power? Take Rupert Murdoch for example; he’s a Media magnate, is the founder and head of News Corporation, a global media establishment. Also being the creator of FOX Broadcasting Company in 1986. (

Personally, I never really knew the about the multimillion-dollar man till the phone hacking scandal of murdered schoolgirl; Milly Dowler in England, July 2011. I mean, it’s one thing to hack a phone in order to illegally obtain private information, but this case created false hope of millions that the murder victim Milly Dowler was in fact alive. Murdoch was responsible for the tragedy and heartbreak of beloved friends and family of the poor victim. This then exposed the unprofessionalism and corruption in front of an entire globalised public sphere exactly the type of media Murdoch was in charge of.

With saying that, we can now understand as a generation growing up under the influence of major media giants such as Murdoch that the information we obtain could and can be manipulated, false, and biased favouring the media king; Murdoch.

It’s important to remember that the concept in media and communications is thinking about the society we in live in and how we want it to be. With our current morals and values as a globalised civilisation, is it okay to let such powerful Media Moguls manipulate our expectations of the truth within media outlets such as the News and the many other sources we depend on as a modern day society? News is the very source we expect to be objective and informative on a daily basis. If giants such as Rupert have been hacking phones as early on as 2005 to such people as celebrities, politicians and even members of the British Royal Family; what is to say that other media influences aren’t doing the same? In fact, why stop at phone hacking? Murdoch has been known to also promote and sway national elections by having biased propaganda advertisements to his favoured party. In America and Australia.

Have a look of the favoured parties table below of the Australian national elections by Murdoch owned corporations and others. Accroding to (

We need to rethink our viewed sources legitimacy, and information, and therefore understand the fact that it’s indeed, important to understand who “controls” the media globally and nationally.

A late uni students problem; angst.

So basically, I’ve been going through a lot of recent struggles with handling all this uni assignments and YES I regret to say that I’ve found myself 2 weeks overdue with this post, BUT, its better late than never right?

Why can’t I finish things on time? Why can’t I just “get it”, and “do it”?

Well, if only it was that simple. Like my own current anxieties with Uni assignments, the media (not just Australian) copes with all kinds of accusations, bringing up today’s anxieties. With this being said I think it’s interesting to discover that looking back at today’s lecture (2 weeks ago) what the top current anxieties are.

  1. Cyber bullying/stalking
  2. Consumerism
  3. Loss of innocence
  4. Anti-social behaviour

I mean, whether we like certain types of media or not (like FB or SBS, or The Australian) we have to realise their influence on our daily lives and even communities. For good, or bad?

One way I like to view this matter, is to remind myself that there are other peoples opinion’s and factors to consider.

Are these anxieties justified, you wonder? Well, take social media for example.

Facebook has loads of benefits; keeping us connected with our friends/family, keeping us updated with the news, events and everything. Cyber bullying is a recent issue that has been touched on by the press through-out the years Facebook’s activeness. Many multiple cases of especially young teenagers being victimised by the ‘online terrors’  through the use of FB. Not only has the company received countless complaints on safety and privacy settings but serious court cases filed against them.

So who is to blame? “The influencers” aka social media or the culprits for the cyber crimes? Personally, I like to say; “The problem is not the tool, but the fool behind it!” No matter how many slam’s the media poses on Facebook, cyber bullying  should always be justified by having it’s perpetrator fitting his/her crime. Society has been blessed with modern day technology, using it as a weapon of cyber bullying should not be taken in any less of a issue than any other crime itself.

Such media out-lets like Facebook, take a lot of criticism by media and it’s users. Because with great power comes with responsibility. Fortunately for Facebook, it’s changed new ‘laws’ have revoked the responsibility for any users for what they do or receive.

Justified? YOU TELL ME.

International-day-of-Non-Violence-20131002-(3)If you’ve been/ or are experiencing cyber bullying. Don’t ignore it. Seek help through the link below.

If you have any thoughts or comments, I’d be happy to hear from you (NO hate thanks ^_^ )

Photoshop of horrors, Friend or Foe?

When it comes to an interpretation of a certain media outlet such as an advertisement, we as an audience (and young uni students) should take the many considerations that involve our effectiveness. Let’s discuss the connotation of “body image”. What is it about these words that make us all secretly queeze inside our stomach’s?

Examples are as followed: social make-up, exercise/and health, genetics, beliefs/religion, socio economic background; just to name a few. These all are factors in which we interpret the many ways in which the media represent things. With this, positive and negative effects are created. An example of the negative impacts the media has portrayed are one of the issues of social anxieties we face today as a modern day society; ‘body image’. For both young men and women, throughout their pubescent phase of teen hood, there would be endless times where all of you have had at least one day where you would face the fact that you’re just not ‘body perfect’ yet. Especially in the western culture, talks of the “summer body” or “leg day” are common in an average person’s life where the need to perfect ones body is necessary to be accepted into the ‘norm’ that the media has shaped.  Where’s the Proof, you wonder?

I guarantee you my fellow peers, go into any store where magazines and even newspapers are sold and don’t worry, at least 5 advertisements will pop up in your baffled face with buffed up men and healthy women posing for the camera to promote their photoshopped “healthy”, ” happy”, “day-to-day” living style. Examples of ‘inspirational’ culprits are Vogue vogue lady gaga

and Calvin klein Can-We-Stop-Body-Shaming-Justin-Bieber-Now-Site-Retracts-Unretouched-Calvin-Klein-Shots-665x385

Why do we think it’s acceptable to advertise an unrealistic body? Why do we need to constantly better ourselves? What’s makes them so desirable?

As I mentioned before, factors come into play. What we see may intrigue our senses. For women, in the vogue photo, it’s simple. Vogue- the label says it all. Women want their clothes, they want to be desirable as lady Gaga looks with that altered curves of hers. It appears that the French-revolution-period styled hair symbolises her “Authority” and “Royal” appearance. Undoubtably giving the audience a sense of influential need to consume this look she’s taken up. Looking at the definitional jawline of them both provoke a healthy looking feature in both a man and woman’s appearance, the thinness and her frailness structure also is commonly desirable for woman s it has been since the 1970’s, with the evolutionary “swingin sixties” idolising thin bodie’s. Women want to look like that. To make themselves wanted or outstanding amongst the crowd. These are whats called the signifiers. They are the singular effects that impact our way of thinking. Vectors, salient colours, healthy looking skin, big muscles, thin body. These are are examples.

On the other hand, these signifiers essentially provoke the audiences moral of the intention created by the media. Now I chose these images for a singular reason. The before and after effects of photoshop. Now certain views may be tossed into the air and spat out by others. What’s yours?!

One view I see as a educated young female, is how the finishing edits of the images are sculpted into something so unrealistic (particularly the vogue advertisement) that it saddens me that women can be blinded by what is considered beauty. As for the men, I could imagine their exhaustion too, if I had to basically dedicate my days at the gym, style my hair, ink myself till there’s no skin left to achieve the socially acceptable sense of what it means to be a man.

These highly known labels are telling us ‘lies’ in this interpretation.

Other views, could see these two images as a positive outcome. As we all know, ‘pretty people’ sell. Money comes from selling products such as these magazines, or clothing brands. Yes, they may be distorted to make themselves and the clothing outstanding but  let’s be honest. It wouldn’t be such a controversial topic if we all looked like them, so of course it’ll make audiences (particularly youth) to consider.. well maybe i have to look like that to achieve what Justin beiber has. Hmmm, let’s see: Lady Gaga’s sex symbol, her powerful voice which she has gained millions of ‘monsters’ as followers, who wouldn’t want to wear the clothes she’s wearing. I would love to be her body size. She’s “perfect”.$200 million net worth based on endless tour around the world, Youtube sensation, sponsorship, sales, etc etc Justin bieber certainly knows how to enjoy his easy-going lifestyle. I would certainly like $200 million dollars thanks. Maybe if I look like him, I could achieve what he has?  People’s mind’s are full of thoughts that could drive them into the crazy world of the social anxieties the media portrays. But in this case, it’s a positive outcome for encoder’s such as vogue and Clavien klein.  These Idols- celebritised context help the encoder’s to achieve sales and production. A positive outcome for them no matter what their before and after shots.

These arguments of whether these images are positive or negative may truly be so controversial that the encoder does this so that the audience can create discussion. To gain more and more followers without them even knowing it. Whether we like it or not, we as a western society are dragged into the media’s creations, via social networking, peers, and anything that has internet connection. In the end, you’re simply not ‘up-to-date’ with the latest craze, like kim kardashian’s blonde hair (sh%^, I want platinum blonde hair now… mum, where’s the hair bleach?!) It’s basically evil at the thought that we are so gullible to the media’s portrayal of these advertisements that. The more we conversate about it, the more trapped we are in the social world. It’s a never ending cycle of debate, which then makes the creators happy to have made such a dint of the world’s views.

The semiotic of the presented images are clear. You either love or loathe the change. Their signifiers are their unrealistic after edits, with Lady G’s Curves What do you think?
Chat to me on your opinions of these two controversial portrayal of influential media.

Bibliography thanks to these guys:



Blog 1:


I really appreciated the fact that, she managed to look beneath the message that I first originally interpreted myself. I thought it was something to do with being careful with the way you drive, or get banned doing it at all. By the use of the gun shaped as keys. I assumed that it was because fire weapons are banned, then you will be too. Reading her analysed deconstruction of the advertisement, I was opened to another spectrum of view. It’s signified concept in this particular image is the fact that driving in dangerous ways that may end yours or someone else life is equally or worse then a fire arm such as the gun. They both take away lives, one is feared, and the other isnt. It’s time to face the law’s and take driving seriously. Her simple format, and easily typed words made it helpful to understand. With this is mind I would rate her blog as an effective piece of creation 🙂

Thanks Maddison.

Blog two:

Her blog, is no doubt colloquial. This is one of the few reasons why I personally like this blog. As you know by now, complicated words can be off-putting and intimidating. In this blog, I found not only the topic (similar to mine) very interesting structurally but how she came about to create her opinionated  view on “body image” like my own. Powerful statements like “your body does not define your worth” really stood out to me. Being a young woman myself, listening to other’s views helps even me to be morally encouraged, TO BE HAPPY WITH MY OWN BODY. Let’s face it, I’m not victoria secret model. Reading this blog just made me overall: happy to know that her opinions back up my own.

Blog three:

First thing that captured my eye was the image at the top. It’s message of “Who’d i’d rather see live” was good enough to make me never buy retailed clothes again.  As referenced in my ‘About me section’  I personally found this blogger’s piece quite heart-breaking as I am an animal lover deep down. Yes, the advertisement certainly divides rooms into debate. But for me, I loved how MMELDIPUGLIA, expresses her own opinions in a more formal way. With that being said, it was appropriate in the sense that it was also a seriously matter. Drawing me (the audience) to really broaden my perspective of animal testing for clothes.