http://www.brokegradstudent.com/why-i-never-give-money-to-homeless-people/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/95216/a_homeless_man_blows_100000_of_free_pg2.html?cat=9

The research that I enjoyed most thus far this semester has to be for sure the semiotic/rhetorical analysis of ads. It was a useful tool to break up apart the meaning behind an advertisement and reflect upon how it used semiotics to relay the viewer a message. I liked looking or watching ads and then discussing the rhetorical analysis behind them, very interesting and helpful for further researching.

One bid idea question related to public space, inclusion, and exclusion that has emerged to me this semester that I would like to think more about is on the issues of surveillance. I would want to research the breakdown on the advantages and disadvantages of using security cameras on the streets and in public/private buildings. I want to see what the majority of the people think dealing with the question is surveillance an efficient tool to keep people safe without the sacrifice of people’s privacy.

A specific site of interest to me is how people who are homeless are treated on the streets in the downtown area of Syracuse. Since I see the problem of excess homeless people around my campus and since they have become a sight to my daily routine, I would want to further research multiple questions behind them. Such as interesting questions as, how much money they get a day, how long have they been homeless, why are they homeless, are they really homeless or is it an act to get free support? I would want to ask questions that no one has before to conclude interesting results about homeless people’s lives.

One idea I have for a research project would be the fact that surveillance in areas of public space is a necessary tool to keep crime down, even with the sacrifice of people’s privacy needs. I would want to give all the perspectives of people for and against this issue and see if excess security cameras really work in depleting crime and mischief. Another idea I have would be looking at the statistical data of homeless people, such as average age, daily money flow, what do they use the money for, male or female, what ethnicity is most homeless, etc. I would take that data and research where the areas are that most homeless people are and find their side of life opposed and how they feel when people look at them opposed to how the public views them. Another idea would be something dealing with the rhetorical analysis of advertisements and how the design and showing of them is key to relaying their message to viewers. I think what interests me most about all these issues is the research that can be done to give facts about these topics then use those facts, along with what I’ve learned in this unit to create a complex analysis on what these results “mean.”

I found this sign in the men’s bathroom on the third floor of link. On the third floor is where research is done, and the sign should read “do not dispose of seaweed…” I think this is “transgressive” because it doesn’t belong and the sign was violated by someone to read something inappropriate giving it an inaccurate meaning. My guess is some student thought it would be funny to tamper with the sign for a comical reasoning. It’s a “transgressive” sight to see walking into the bathroom, but I don’t see this act as such a violation to law, etc. I think the public determines if this is a particular sign of “transgressive” because that is who is seeing this everyday and if someone card that much, they could easily tear down the sign themselves. There has been no public uproar from this sign because to the simple fact that it is harmless and probably was done for laughs. In conclusion, after researching upon these “transgressive” semiotics, I became very interested in what they mean and how they are illustrated/interpreted in society. I hope to further learn and analyze semiotics in public space.

(click above link for ad)

I chose this PETA advertisement because it shows a controversial picture of why people should go vegetarian. Let’s start with the fact they used a larger size kid for the face of the advertisement, tying in connection of meat = fat. The words along the bottom state, “Feeding kids meat is child abuse.” They put “meat” in a different, more standout color than the rest, giving the picture again as a feel that eating meat will make you fat and that’s that. It also states below, “Fight the fat, go veg.” These are very bias words to be said solely about the nutritional facts behind meat, we all know meat is good for you; full of protein, etc, but for PETA to try and control social behavior to make people believe that meat is the root of all evil is inaccurate. Using this strategy of saying eating meat is killing your child and using an overweight kid eating a burger in the photo is highly problematic. It’s giving the depiction of a very bias visual that every kid that is fed meat becomes overweight. This is a very interesting strategy for PETA on trying to make the public convert to vegetarians. As I was conducting research and analyzing advertisements on the internet, I concluded that companies like to use the “shock and awe” factor in their visuals and billboards to scare people in believing what they’re seeing. Companies also like to create controversial advertisements for a way of getting their name out there. For example if a company came up with an ad that went beyond social agreement, it then creates a stir of arguments for and against it, forming a more massive advertisement scheme. In conclusion, I find these contentious advertisements for interesting on how various perspectives of people interpret and analyze them.

#1) The picture of Syracuse University’s old mascot, the Saltine Warrior. This is a symbol because it is simply a statue visually referring to our once mascot. This is located right in front of Carnegie Hall, near the Quad. This location is significant because it is in the center of the campus and near the walk to the Carrier Dome where our athletic teams play. This means that as the traffic of people goes by it, it is a symbol of our school spirit we have for our old mascot and a historical visual to remember the Saltine Warrior. It is trying to control that we never forget our old mascot, among current students, alumni and the community.

#2) The picture of the no smoking sign is an icon that directly represents “Smoking? Don’t do it,” (with appropriate cultural experience). This same sign is located outside the computer lab door in Link Hall. This location depicts the fact that even though the mass public knows of the smoke free New York laws, administration at SU is strictly enforcing the fact that they don’t want people smoking in the computer labs because of the damage it could cause. This is trying to control no smoking but even though the majority of people already know not to smoke in public buildings, the excess signs saying this tells you how strictly enforced no smoking has become in these types of locations.

#3) The road sign of the biker falling off his bike is a mix between a symbol and an index. It’s a symbol because it is a visual representation of danger ahead for bikers and it is an index because it is telling that biker of the potential danger they might encounter and to be cautious of the situation. The location of this sign is in Portland, Oregon before upcoming train tracks. This means that the sign is a common sense thing to be aware of going over train tracks so you don’t fall off. It is trying to control the dangers that someone might have if they trip their bike tires and get knocked out on the tracks when a train is coming. It is trying to control and minimize injuries one might encounter.

I’ll start with the fact that it was very hard to get in trouble with the faculty. With most teachers ignoring the fact they broke a rule or acted wrongly inside or outside of the class, etc. You can get away with a lot of things. Another social benefit of wearing that jersey were students felt lower than you, everyone wanted to be like you and I don’t mean that in a stuck up way, people just envied them. Also outside of school, the community knew who you were and they made you feel like local celebrities, always getting praise wherever you were. Another way we were being separated from the rest of the student body was from the littering of free stuff we received: shirts, pants, warm-up jackets, all-inclusive hotels, and free meals, to name a few. The fact that we felt we were treated better than our other classmates made us feel different, and then came the haters. Being treated better made other people feel that we were getting away with things just for being on the acclaimed #1 soccer team in the state.

In analysis, the social border the soccer team made with the rest of the community came down to hard work and talent. The social boundary wasn’t created from racial segregation, sex type, social cliques, rich/poor, etc, but from a self made effort. It’s a different way to think about imaginary social exclusions between groups because the border was made on its own and not based on how people look, act, wear, etc. It was more based on the stand out performance they endured over other competing schools, which made their own community feel apart of it. This formula of success created confidence, town-pride and brought the community closer together. Wherever you went, you wanted to say I go to Galway High School or I’m from Galway, to get that awe from bordering towns because they know that’s the soccer capital or the region. And for its such small size, it just makes it that much better for our team to compete with bigger schools and win, 25 straight wins and a state championship in my senior year cemented a social marker for our town to forever be looked upon as a soccer dynasty.