Commodity Self: Are you the product of products?

            I believe that people are the product of products, but only to a certain extent. The products in which people buy or associate themselves with can shape who that person is, but those products do not directly define a person. Products can generalize a person, but they cannot tell everything about that person. I agree with media theorist Stuart Ewen when he expresses the idea of “commodity self”, in which our selves are “mediated and constructed in part through our consumption and use of commodities.” Our Practices of Looking textbook goes on to state that, “Clothing, music, cosmetic products, and cars, among other things, are commodities that people use to construct their identities and project them outward to those around them” (279). 

            Clothing, as an example, is a product in which people use to identify themselves. There are so many types of clothing, but what one may choose to wear is completely different from someone else. Teenagers wear the “cool” clothes, while adults wear more sophisticated, less provocative clothing. Clothing, therefore, categorizes people into age groups and different generations. Some clothing is subject to religion and ethnicities, while other clothing represents the type of person one may be. The clothing that people wear shapes the way they are perceived by the general public. For example, I always tend to look nice; I do my hair every morning, wear nice clothes, and put on jewelry and makeup. The look I have created for myself signifies me as a classy girl. But if I were to wear sweats and tennis shoes everyday, people would classify me as something different. No matter what I wear though, I am still the same person on the inside. I still have the same beliefs and experiences I had before switching clothing styles. I don’t let my clothes directly define me, but they do have an impact on the way I identify myself and allow other to perceive me. Therefore, I do believe that we construct our identities, at least in part, through consumer products.

Franz Kline (1910-1962)

            Franz Kline was an Abstract Expressionist artist of the 1900s. He was born in 1910 in Pennsylvania, and developed his love for art in his high school drawing class. He decided to take on art as a career, first studying illustration and cartooning. He attended the Heatherley’s School of Fine Art in London, from 1936-1938, where he met his future wife, Elizabeth. He moved to New York and lived as a starving artist; he struggled to survive because he didn’t like to sell his paintings.

            Kline struggled to find an artistic style throughout much of his career. He began doing figurative work, drawing many self-portraits. He also painted landscapes, still lifes, and murals. Then, in 1946, he gradually turned toward abstraction. Once he found his niche in abstract art, there was no turning back. His abstract paintings became so famous that they overwhelmed every other aspect of his art. Many people know Kline for his abstractions, but not many people know that he did other types of art as well.

            His most famous abstract pieces are his black and white paintings. These are paintings of extreme contrast and dramatic lines. I was intrigued by these paintings because they are so unique; they are simple, yet loud and bold. Figure Eight is a black and white painting that caught my eye because of its intense black line- the line captures so much energy and movement. I also like his technique of “overpainting” in Figure Eight, which is where “Many of the whites… lie on top of the blacks, some of which Kline let show through intentionally while others have worked to the surface as the painting has aged” (Gaugh 78). This gives the painting visual layers that capture attention.

Figure Eight

Although Kline was most known for his abstractions, one of his paintings I really liked was from the Jazz Murals he painted in 1933. He painted a series of stylized musicians on a wall in the town roller-skating rink in Lehighton, PA. I love these murals because music is such a passion of mine, and he really portrayed the musicians in an exciting way. It's almost like you can hear the music they are playing because each character is portrayed with such movement and excitement. Unfortunately, the walls which the murals were painted on were torn down in 1980. 

Another painting I like incorporates his early figure drawings with abstract qualities. Small Seated Figure was painted in 1947 and combined "loosely brushed contour with colored planes" (Gaugh 42).

 Small Seated Figure

One of my favorite paintings I found when researching Kline's work was an untitled piece painted in 1948. In this abstraction, Kline used so many different textures and colors, as well as shapes and figures. I find myself trying to find different images among the painting, even though it just consists of lines and curves. The way he placed the colors and lines together is quite fascinating. 

Franz Kline created similar abstract paintings to the black and white images, but utilized color as well. Many of his abstract paintings are very colorful, while others are quite simple. One of the more simple paintings I love is his Scudera. This piece is primarily painted different shades of blue, with black and red accents. I like how simple this painting is, yet beautiful and elegant. The rich blue color and very calming and easy on the eye.

Gaugh, Harry F. Franz Kline. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Art Museum, 1994. Print.


Metzger, Robert P. and Franz Kline. Franz Kline: the jazz murals. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University, 1989. Print.

Harrell Fletcher's Art and Community

            Harrell Fletcher is an artist that creates work for the community, as well as through the community. The purpose behind his art is to bring people together to talk about art. He wants to make art accessible that is otherwise not accessible. In the Garage Sale Series, Harrell went to many different garage sales and found different pieces to put in his gallery. Along with each piece, he put story tags explaining where it was from, who’s it was, etc. He loved the meaning and sentimental value that each item carried. Harrell said that he likes to get the community involved because it makes the art interesting and exciting for them. Being involved in the process of making this art really brings people together.
            While traveling around to numerous garage sales, Harrell noticed that there were many similar items at each garage sale. In his gallery he placed similar items together- hats, bowls, etc. He also placed items together according to which garage sale they came from. Each section in his gallery was like a mini story depicted of some person’s life and their personal possessions. Harrell was interested in learning about a person’s life, putting it on display, and making it into art. This goes back to the idea of making art accessible. Harrell takes what would normally be considered just a regular household item, and turns it into art. He takes it from the community and then puts it on display for the community. After the show was over, Harrell used his gallery as a garage sale, selling back all of the items to the community. This captured the idea that what is one person’s trash is another person’s treasure. I think Harrell wanted to show the community what art could be, and get them involved with the creation of it. He brings an awareness of art to the community, while capturing their appreciation for his art. 

The effects of Peep

            Hal Niedzviecki is a smart man. I never thought too much about how social media has affected this world until his discussion yesterday about Peep culture. Hal described Peep culture as “reality TV, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, MySpace and Facebook.” It is pretty much anything on the Web that exploits people and their lives, whether put there by themselves or others. He talked about how we love Peep culture because it gives us a place to tell our story to anyone who wants to listen. We want to reach out to the community around us, without having to make much of an effort. The idea of connection with low expectation is the fact that people want to connect with each other, but don’t actually want to “hug” each other. The virtual world allows us to get close to each other, without getting too close. Once Hal said this, it was such an eye-opener for me. I completely agree with this idea. I have a bunch of friends on Facebook, but only a select few that I actually hang out with or see on a regular basis. For me, I like to see where high school friends are now in their lives, and what’s going on with them. Even though we’re not really friends anymore, it’s still a sort of connection I have with that part of my life, and it’s entertaining. Who’s getting married, who’s pregnant now, and who’s dating whom? It’s addicting.

            Many people become part of the Peeping world because they feel alone. They search for acceptance from followers or other bloggers- people who have similar interests and people that they can relate to. Hal talked about a woman who blogs because she feels that’s the only way she can be her complete self. The world today is becoming more of a virtual world than flesh. Although the virtual world may feel more rewarding to us, like we’re connecting to so many people, we actually have a disconnect from people. Not as many people know their neighbors or the others around them. They only know people through the computer. But how much do those 800 “friends” of yours on Facebook really mean to you? In relation to Facebook at least, Hal said, “we’ve polluted the word ‘friend’ to mean virtually nothing.” This is so true. Such a smart, smart man. 

Art and Double Standards

             In history, art was created mainly for the male audience. We see many paintings of women, a lot of them nude. They have beautiful porcelain skin and a voluptuous figure that draws attention from the male viewer. People today consider these paintings to be highly idolized. They possess beauty and elegance, without being too graphic. When we look at women in advertisements however, the view changes. Not many people look at advertisements and see a form of art. I was one of those people until this past week. After learning about what advertisements portray and what they try to facilitate to the viewer, I began to realize the amount of depth they actually possess. 

            This is what I think most people skip over, which is why advertisements are not considered a higher form of art like fine arts. In a fine arts image, people have to figure out for themselves what the image is trying to portray. There are usually no words associated with the image except for the title (which is usually next to it in a tiny print that no one can see until getting up close to the image on display). This brings me to another point- many fine arts images are on display in museums or galleries, meaning people have to voluntarily go there to see them, or the real thing at least. This already puts the image on some kind of a pedestal in the viewer’s mind. If the image is good enough to be in a museum, it must be good. Advertisements, on the other hand, are readily accessible to anyone and everyone. Flip open a magazine and you see too many to count. Drive down the street and you’ll see a bunch plastered on buildings and billboards. You can literally hold an advertisement in your hand, rip it up and throw it away.

            This leads me into my discussion on women in advertisements. Because of the simple fact that ads are more easily accessible, the value of them and the images they possess automatically decrease. The woman in an ad may be the same woman in a fine arts painting, but she is unconsciously going to be perceived differently by the viewer. Women in advertisements are the epitome of what the female viewer wants to look like, and what the male viewer wants to have. They are considered the “beautiful” of today’s society. The woman in an ad is trying to sell an experience to the viewer, but is also creating a standard for what people need to look like or have to get that experience, which has the power to affect the viewer’s self-image. Rarely, if ever, does someone look at a painting and think, “If I only looked like her…” This is because the painting is not trying to sell something to you or make you look a certain way. The painting is just there for you to look at and interpret in your own way. This is why I think women in paintings are idolized, because they represent the more normal person, which the viewer can relate to. A woman in an ad is just another woman that the viewer can look at, but there is no connection with her in the ad itself. The woman in a painting TELLS a story, while the woman in an advertisement SELLS a story.