For this analytic blog post, I wanted to examine PETA’s use of rhetorical culture in regards to the Pokémon franchise. This is not a joke. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a long catalogue of parody games used to promote the attitudes towards animal treatment by painting these seemingly innocuous pieces of media in the horrifyingly real light that their subject matter would actually attract if they were to be taken more seriously. In specific, I wanted to look at their unusually dark and disturbing 2012 game, Pokémon: Black and Blue, a spin on the Black and White entries in the popular Nintendo game franchise of the same name. The game follows a group of liberated Pokémon, small creatures whose canonical purpose is to be captured and do battle with other Pokémon, going on a warpath defeating trainers and changing their views on “Pokémon rights.” I have decided against including a visual because I feel that it would be much more effective just watching or playing the actual product, which is available for free online. The intent of the appropriation of the Pokémon branding was to point a finger at perceived injustices towards animals in real life, such as exploitative use in real life as entertainment or in making clothes, which are all topics that his parody game hits on. This, as Harold points out is a form of pranking activism, by temporarily stealing the attention away from the media they are parodying. The purpose of using the brand in their marketing as a form of appropriation was likely done for two reasons: 1) they needed a recognizable brand that would draw a significant amount of media coverage and would likely reach a large audience, which it did, and 2) by using this brand as the basis for this parody, they could play with the inherent messages present in the actual games, such as animal kinship and opposition to those who would misuse these creatures. What I find interesting in this piece is the idea that the Pokémon franchise elicits this violent attitude in its audience that would cause them to take gleeful pleasure in fighting in animals in real life, which is demonstrably false considering the wide popularity of the series as a whole. While it does not discourage these attitudes per se, there are messages within the intent of encouraging positive interactions with Pokémon (animals) and that the proper treatment and friendship with these creatures is usually one of the key takeaways present in the franchise, something that PETA was seemingly aware of, but chose to ignore regardless. On the whole, it must also be taken into account how effective this has been as a tactic. Looking at many online gaming commentators and streamers playing this game shows that, for the most part, the message has backfired, as there is usually an air of mockery in the examination of these products. The over the top violence and gore combined with the cheap presentation lays bare the idea that this is a simple marketing ploy by PETA to conjure their ideologies. I feel that the only people who this will effectively convert are those who are already somewhat in agreement with PETA’s philosophy towards the treatment of animals. However, on the other hand, it could just be because, as an organization, PETA is already far too controversial in their own right. The idea behind culture jamming should be to seek out media from contentious sources, but when the source of the culture jamming is themselves entangled in controversy, it likely weakens the message and, in this case negates the intended effect.

This picture distills the essence of what culture jamming is by using multiple brand symbols to outline the problem with the manufacturer-consumer cycle. Using the appropriation method of culture jamming, the creator of this image seeks to associate these brands – and possibly corporate culture as a whole – with a predatory capitalistic cycle. The performance here is a parody taking these recognizable brands and using the visual association that viewers might have with them to criticize their true nature. While it is a very surface level example of culture jamming, it puts is meant to put in the viewers minds the true intentions behind these companies rather than the simple idea that they would like you to buy their products. Rather, it wants the viewer to understand that they are part of a cycle of living to buy.

For this month’s Analytic Blog post I wanted to analyze the ideograph of <social justice>.Cloud’s article on the ideography of the presents a somewhat different view of the ideography than that of Edwards and Winkler, while serving a similar purpose to that of her predecessors.

In order to form an ideograph, we need a few elements. The first is that it needs to have a relatively common rhetorical term that conjures and encapsulates key social commitments. In this case, much like Edwards and Winkler, we have a common term that has shared meaning for many different people, meaning it can reach. It could be argued that most people understand the concept of <social justice>: it is the evening of the distribution of privileges to account for past inequalities and the fight to reduce this unevenness in our society.

Another defining feature of an ideograph is that it has the potential to shift in meaning over time. While the meaning of <social justice> as an ideograph over time has not necessarily shifted, it has been used to further different causes, such as the fight against racial inequality, women’s suffrage, and more recently, the fight for marriage equality.

One other element that some ideographs possess is a binary opposition: a showing of two sides of the argument in conflict. We can see versions of this in every example of the fight for social justice, from people protesting outside court houses to arrests being made during the Civil Rights marches. These elements are meant to epitomize the ideograph which they represent which is why it is important for these images to be exceptionally powerful and moving to provoke support for the messages found therein.

There needs to be a clear opposition in the way that images are presented in the sense of a visual ideograph if a binary opposition is to be successful. In this case, it is necessary to essentially choose a side in the argument in presenting the ideograph. In this sense, those who fight for social would be portrayed in a much more positive light, while those who oppress them are shown in a more negative way. While ideographs at their core serve a discursive function, they are not neutral symbols.

While the ideograph of social justice has shifted somewhat over the years, we can see by presenting this binary opposition that there is a common theme of “the oppressor”, usually those in power who want to keep a sort of status quo or keep another group of people in a lower level of authority. Those who are in power control the message and in a sense are to the ideograph of <social justice> what Huntington’s “the other” are to the ideograph of the <clash of civilizations>, an antithesis and a point of separation between the ideals that are put forth.

However, the most important element of an ideograph is whether it is effective, and based on the attached image, I feel that most would look at it and take the side of those who represent social justice just based on what they are currently seeing. In modern culture, social justice is looked at as a point of positivity, a movement towards a more equitable future, which I feel that many would find uncontroversial, even as the real-world application does often find opposition.

This image conjures up the visual ideography of what most Americans would likely consider <liberty> or <democracy> as a concept, as this image has come to symbolize our willingness to fight for our morals, those being the rights afforded to us by the Constitution. Throughout American history, images like this have been used to represent the dedication of Americans to these principles, even though the reality of this image is that it is an unfortunate side effect of fighting for those freedoms tooth and nail. The image itself could apply to any era wherein Americans were seen as a liberating force, entering a country under threat of fascism, communism, or tyranny and bringing “true” <liberty> and <democracy> to save the day.

I am using this picture of a dog in a shelter to represent the naturalistic enthymeme in terms of the life of a shelter dog. The representational reality of this image is that it illustrates the very real problem of sheltered animals being forgotten and eventually put to sleep if they are not adopted. The ontological realism of the situation is not only representative by the dog’s obviously wistful stare, but also the decrepit state of the confines in which it resides. Finally the mechanical realism is that we are seeing this very possible reality play out before us. There is no indication to the viewer that this would not be a real shelter dog, as this is a reality that many people are aware of which plays into the “adopt don’t shop” culture that this image is meant to highlight.

For my blog post, I wanted to explore McCloud’s analysis of icons and cartoons and since McCloud used comics to convey his point I thought I would use an image from the comic Justice League: Kingdom Come as the basis for my analysis. This image unlike much of what McCloud discusses does not leave many gaps for the mind to fill in to understand what the image is attempting to convey. The icon in question is very clearly a group of colorful individuals drawn very realistically. Because of this, it is very simple for our minds to immediately establish what is happening in this picture: a group of superheroes looking very forlorn due to some assumed tragedy. The reason for this identification is because of an extension of self that we can attribute to this group of heroes that we create subconsciously.

I feel that this semi-realistic portrayal also tows the line between the realm of the senses and the realm of the concept that McCloud discusses. As this is not so much a cartoon as it is an accurate portrayal of humanity, both in the physical and emotional sense, there

This appearance, as opposed to the much less detailed and cartoonish aesthetic of its contemporaries seeks to establish not only a different tone but a different idea in the mind of the viewer. Without knowing the context behind this image, the viewer can establish the gravitas of the situation just by the art style and the conflicting mood emphasized by the emotions and the colorful costumes of its subjects.

The background also works to emphasize the meaning of this image, which is not what one would initially assume considering the seeming lack thereof. The pronounced blankness of it gives more definition to the characters that are encompassed within it, drawing forth a slew of new emotions. It conveys a despair to the characters which the viewer then can experience vicariously, which I feel is one of the more powerful aspects of this image. It seems like such a simple detail, almost as if the artist just left it out due to time constraints, but on reflection there are many interpretations that can be made of this simple omission.

It should also be noted for the cultural aspect that the characters portrayed are relevant to most potential audiences. Most people would look at this cover and see a despondent Superman or The Flash and connect with it in the sense of the public conscience, allowing the reader to mask themselves and enter this image in a metaphysical sense.

So that begs the question of what meaning can be obtained from this one image. To add a little more context, Kingdom Come is a story about the end of the era of the Justice League and the rise of new, more extreme and violent heroes. Based on that fact alone, we can make connections about what the image represents with all of these moving parts. Using the writer’s perspective on this image, we can even further begin to understand all the emotions associated and conveyed. By combining the language of word and image, we can more fully begin to understand what we are seeing and connect with the image on a more personal level.

In this instance, the individual in question decided to tattoo a reminder of the hardships that they went through in dealing with addiction, and this tattoo is a sign of sobriety. In some people’s minds, addiction is viewed as a weakness of sorts, which has caused a stigmatization of these conditions. This individual in particular has decided that they will not look at their past as a time of weakness, but as a time of learning and healing. While attitudes have changed in more recent years to victims of substance abuse and addiction, there are still many who view it as personal weakness, and that the consequences associated are the fault of the afflicted, which is the attitude that this tattoo wishes to address.