Damon Krukowski’s “Power” episode explores the effects of digital distribution of art and how it affects our choice/selection of music. He elaborates on this idea by describing the function of the algorithms used by massive streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music. These algorithms are designed to maximize usage of their services. The algorithms goal is to keep consumer retention through creating custom generated playlists based on AI interpretation of the music they listen to. After all, alienating your consumers music taste doesn’t live up to the new modern paradigm of tailored consumer experience. In a system that rewards sameness, powerful and exciting music that you would otherwise never hear, become marginalized as its punished for not matching up with your tailored experience. Therefore permanently held outside our view of the millions of songs already competing for our attention. Powerful corporations have such a handle on our consumption of music, that it’s difficult to exploit the enormous power and value in marginalized music. We miss opportunities to challenge our music taste and inherently prohibit the discovery of some of the best music the world has to offer.

Another take on the influence of streaming services, are who the algorithm uplifts. Musicians with access to better financial and/or circumstantial opportunities will have an advantage in “beating” the algorithm and achieving some form of success on these platforms. This inevitably means that musicians of underprivileged backgrounds never have their art – their truths heard and spoken to the masses, forever lost in the others millions of song that’ll never be heard in the mainstream.

1.  In Krukowski’s “Love” episode of Ways of Seeing, he shares his past personal experiences on the fidelity of analog phone calls. He informs me on the information lost in digital phone calls in the modern age. Krukowski does a great job in explaining the function of sound and how we interpret it, such as the proximity effect. Low end is annunciated when the person is near a microphone while the high end is annunciated when further away. Krukowski then briefly pauses and invites us to reflect on the meaning of language, “When we share our voices, whether through song or speech. Aren’t we always saying more than our words? We’re sharing sounds so basic to our understanding that they proceed language.”. Krukowski is not giving us an answer here but is pointing out something we see with hindsight. There’s more to speech besides language, such as inflection, proximity, space, etc. These are important factors as they provide us with information beyond what is said. Inflections tell us if it’s a question or statement, proximity tells us how far the source is, any form of reverb which can give us a sense of space. These are all elements of speech that get lost with digital technology through compression which removes dynamics in volume, EQ to remove unnecessary low end that’s not needed for speech recognition and noise gates to removes unwanted noise that could be picked up. All we hear is the spoken language.
2. The most interesting topic that’s explored is the social aspects of sex and language and how that impacts A.S.M.R.’s perception to the public. I never put into words my thoughts on our languages limitations on expressing the grey areas of love and pleasure. Jamie Lauren Keiles’ provides an example, if you enjoy getting your feet touched, that doesn’t necessarily mean you go to shoe stores for fun. There is a name for people who seek that–eccentrics,  perverts. Since the language used to describe A.S.M.R. share the same language in those gray areas, being sexualized is an inevitability.

In Krukowski’s podcast “Ways of Hearing” he explores the concept of privatized spaces, one of them being personal bubbles. It hadn’t dawned on me till I heard Kurkowski’s description of today’s modern climate, but as someone who can’t go outside without music in their ears; I agree that people voluntarily engage into these safe spaces with intent of removing themselves. As I reflect personally on my own experiences, I remember the times I’ve chosen to remove my earphones because I became conscious of my lack of awareness. It’s as if not being in tune with my surroundings can cause spikes of anxiety. When one’s senses are deprived, the deficit can distort one’s perception of their own reality. With many people practicing the same habits, there has been a societal shift in how we interact with others on the outside. We now market audio products with terms like soundproof. There’s business in enhancing these personal spaces. I’ve found myself cranking the volume to the max on my earphones so I could combat the loud interior of a train. I never engage with any strangers because I’m uncomfortable with the idea of forcing someone out of an experience they’ve opted to be in. In a lot of ways our society has normalized the use of personalized safe spaces.

Oppressive and racist institutions still shape the material conditions of all POC today. All while inadvertently benefitting from white press, who’s intentions were to gather sympathy for POC from white readers. As Berger puts it, “To the degree that narratives illustrating white power over blacks helped make the images nonthreatening to whites, the photographs impeded efforts to enact—or even imagine—reforms that threatened white racial power.”. This is all precisely why we need more mainstream coverage of the opposition. White media should feature more POC in positions of power, and/or feature demonstrations against racist institutions. It should demand for assimilation, a call for action. With the meteoric rise of the reactionary ALM movement, or how BLM protests are constantly invalidated and made to look like mindless violence on the news. Today’s media is being overtly biased and dead set on preserving the status quo. My proposed remedy is for mainstream media to become active in the public condemning of racism and oppression of all forms. 

He considers publicity as the manufacturing of glamour. Publicity influences consumers by alluring them with this glamour. This is rendered more effective because of the nature of our society. Under capitalism we are encouraged to buy, so we can keep the economy going. Often advertisements show a product along side a model, often seen as happy or content. This is all an attempt to persuade the public perception of the product. The product is the source of the subjects happiness. There for it too will be your source of happiness. This is all significant because this implies that publicity is meant to appeal rather than actually deliver.

Their difference is important because when juxtaposed, they reveal the shift in function of these mediums. Publicity is meant to bring in consumers, by enticing them with status, glamour. Oil paintings on the other hand never showed what the subject didn’t have, they are always drawn grounded to their own material possessions. It just comes to show how superficial and manufactured advertising is.

The dream of going else where I feel is a powerful dream many people posses. Advertisements always glorify foreign lands by substituting foreign culture/symbolism with western cultures and ideals. Offering us a distortion of the actual material conditions in which the product inhabits, all in favor of the advertisements purpose. This distortion is what manipulates many into accepting the context in which advertisements where designed to put you in.

John Berger believes that nakedness is to be oneself, but a nude is to be seen as naked to others and not be recognized as oneself. I’d add that in today’s society this form of objectification has moved over to a more modern medium such as videography/photography. John shares paintings of naked women, and points out how they are portrayed as submissive, often drawn with a charming gaze. Clearly the paintings were made to allure the men who observe it. A similar clear modern example would be pornography. A lot of today’s porn is made with the male viewer in mind, normalizing the treatment of women as objects for sexual gratification.

Having said all that, I do believe that women today have taken it upon themselves to reclaim the production of their own image. Unfortunately a lot of men without perspective, label women’s attempt of sexual liberation as self objectification. John discusses the competitive nature of beauty within European paintings. The apple being synonymous as the prize, the trophy. The judge always being depicted as a man. John’s logic if applied in today’s more modern media, could fit the same narrative. I believe women have more control over their image than they ever have. They control what they allow others to see. It’s not determined by anyone other than themselves. And that’s because women have also became content creators, and they can determine what us the viewers see. But the fast paced social media is the perfect breeding ground for competitiveness. Their success is often dependent on the viewer. Especially if you are a female model. Then your content success is often driven by what the male viewer wants to see. So even if women have reclaimed the production of their own image, the male role is so engrained in today society. The male gaze is still a deciding factor on the content produced.

Women’s hold on the production of their own personal content is fairly new and is step in the right direction. Sadly its reach is fairly limited. Its influence has yet to reform pornography. Which is the breeding ground for how a lot of men and women develop their impressions of sexuality in today’s society. John talks about how women are often drawn relaxed, posed submissively, sometimes even drawn with another man but never directing their gaze on them but us the viewer. John argues that since the painters draw these women as idealized as they are, their image is determined by the male gaze. One of the women later on in John’s segment summarizes it best, “Nearly all the paintings you have shown are what is called, idealized; and therefore they are to me, very unreal.”. Her quote perfectly encapsulates todays porn industry. Most pornography today is so unrealistic, only depicting men dominating women and the women enjoying it. I believe John would be inclined to agree with my observations on the matter.