Chapters 9 and 10

In Chapter 9, which discusses imagery in relation to science and biology, I was initially surprised by the very public spectacles of anatomy theaters in past centuries, where cadavers were operated on in displays before large crowds, as a form of entertainment. Today, it seems improbable that people would flock together to an arena to watch a body get sliced apart and see what is inside. It then occurred to me, however, that this particular practice in "looking" within bodies is alive and well today, through television. It's true that the popularity of medically-themed television shows can be attributed to many factors, ranging from the personal drama in the medical staff's relationships to fascination with rare and surprising medical cases (a fascination whose basis have may have nothing to do with visual elements). Still, doesn't at least part of the interest in shows such as Grey's Anatomy stem from a voyeuristic desire to see inside people's bodies and to vicariously experience the characters' excitement in cutting people up?



A quick google search reveals (not surprisingly) that in this modern version of the anatomic arena, all of the blood and organs shown are fake. This brings us back to issues addressed at the beginning of the book; namely, how real is an image that is manipulated or staged? Is the entertainment value of these shows affected by the fact that these portrayals of the human body do not use real organs? And if these organs were used in a program intended for medical education, would it matter more than the body components are fake, even if they were portrayed in an exact, true-to-life manner?



In Chapter 10, the authors address the global flow of visual culture. One of the issues discussed is the ubiquity of certain companies (particularly restaurants and coffeehouses) that are spread throughout the world, which allow individuals in many places that are distant from one another to experience the same atmosphere (including visual elements).

However, this is not entirely true. The book speaks about the relationship between globalization and localization, and it is a relationship that can be observed in even such seemingly cloned franchises as McDonald's restaurants. All around the world, adjustments are made to accommodate local culture--for example, the Maharaja Mac in India, which is made of lamb or chicken (beef and pork are not served for religious reasons). Localized items are also offered simply to accomodate local tastes: hence the McKebab in Israel, McKrokets (Dutch croquettes) in the Netherlands, the Bulgogi Burger in South Korea, and the Korokke Burger in Japan, which is a sandwich with breaded mashed potatoes, shredded cabbage, and katsu sauce. Several Asian countries also offer burgers whose contents are sandwiched between two patties of glutinous rice.



Still, when a large global corporation takes elements of local culture and incorporates them into their product line, which is the winner, local culture or globalized influence? Let us look at an example more directly tied to images: if a beauty product company from an outside culture creates billboard advertisements that use local models and elements of local decor to sell its product line, does it still run the risk of influencing another culture's perceptions by representing its own standard of beauty as ideal?