The Coca-Cola company would like for every American to think of Coke as “The Real Thing,” not an imposter (like Pepsi), nor anything less than the premier beverage for quenching our thirst and enjoying a tasty treat, while simultaneously, somehow, connecting with millions of other people across the country--nay, the entire world!--as we “enjoy” a Coke. At least that’s the message they’ve been sending me since 1971. Drinking a Coke is so much more than simply putting something sweet into my gullet--it’s an experience. It’s THE REAL THING.
Above is a photographic image of sidewalk art rendered by urban artist Julian Beever. A depiction in and of itself of a bottle of Coke, “The Real Thing” (product slogan), this photograph intrigues me on a number of levels. Because it is a photograph of a drawing, it is not “the real thing,” but rather a representation at least twice removed. Furthermore, this genre of urban art fools the eye of passersby, who, when finding themselves confronted with such an image, are forced to consider whether the messages their eyes are sending to their brains are “real," merely an illusion, or a real illusion. Finally, even as I look at this photograph of what I know to be a drawing of “the real thing,” my brain has a tough time registering that this is not in fact a picture of a giant bottle of Coca-Cola resting on the sidewalk.
I chose this image not only for its metacognitive power, but also because it made me think about Hill’s discussion of 'seeing is believing,' that is “often applied to natural objects that are being directly perceived, but often to visual representations of objects, people, and events as well. Photographs and video, in particular, are typically treated as ‘direct copies of reality’ rather than as representations designed to influence viewers in particular ways (Messaris, vi)” (108). So, I’m looking at this photo of a drawing of a bottle of Coke, “the real thing,” while reading this passage and well, I need a Coke and some time to think.
I think we can ask about this image what Christine asks about the image she chose:
“As Berger tells us, photos cannot lie, but, at the same time, they can only tell partial truths. What partial truths are revealed by this image?”
It also has me thinking about Bret’s comment in his post about the “photo” taken by the Hubble Telescope, “the image we are receiving via light interacting with Hubble Telescope does not represent a current moment, but rather a look into the past." Granted, Bret's picture is an extreme example of our seeing history in a photo, but aren’t all photos a “look into the past”?
Moreover, the picture of the artist’s rendering of the bottle of Coca-Cola conjures a specific type of history, at least if the Coca-Cola company has its way. Coke wants to be America’s drink, to be included among those heavy-hitters of baseball, hotdogs, apple pie, the 4th of July. So a glance at a bottle of Coke, whether “real” or not, involves nostalgia (as long as their marketing team is doing its job).
Berger: “taking” p. 11-- I wonder if Coca-Cola gave Beever permission to render their product on the sidewalk, or if he just “took it” for his own use. I wonder if the suits appreciate the free advertising, or if they take offense to this rendering or others of its type. Do they resent that folks will inevitably walk on their product’s image? I’m reminded of the Disney Company’s reaction to the rendering and usage of Mickey Mouse on the sides of barns or on children’s birthday cakes, etc: they don’t like it and they'll sue you for it.
Source: http://www.impactlab.net/2006/03/09/amazing-3d-sidewalk-art-photos/
So, I am intrigued with the "realness" of this image. After reading your post I see that it is a 3d drawing (I presume?) Here coincides the photograph (the quotation) with the drawing (the translation). So my question then is which one is art? Berger would most likely suggest the 3D drawing is the art while the photo has captured the moment.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is for sure, if I were walking down the street, I would be very confused, initially, as to why I did not need to sidestep (most likely tripping on myself in the process) a giant bottle on the ground. That may just be me though. Here, I can also see your reading of Hill's "seeing is believing." But my question here is what are we believing? It is "the real thing" (which it's not)? It is a bottle (which technically it's not)? It is a representation? Yes.
I think you raise an interesting point about copy right and "ownership" that reminds me of class last semester. I would be interested to know if the Coca-Cola company would 1) be happy for the free advertisement or 2) disturbed by the connotations of masses walking all over the representation of their product.
Since this is street art, my mind immediately goes to Mary Poppins when Bert draws her portrait and then they later 'jump' into the art to explore the exciting world they portray. I think this image has captured art that is only momentary. It will eventually be washed away, and now there is at least a record of the moment the photographer captured. Here I come back to the conversation I started about art. Sidewalk art is a very intriguing genre. What is it saying? How does the photograph capture the moment differently, beyond the scope of the work of art itself. In someways, this connects to how I looked at my own image. What do we do with art that is captured by photograph... if we presume photographs (as Berger suggests) are not art? Is there an instance where a photograph translates? Could your photograph be translating the some message from Coca-Cola in a different medium?
"I think this image has captured art that is only momentary. It will eventually be washed away, and now there is at least a record of the moment the photographer captured." -- yes, I have been thinking about that as well, wondering if that is the reason for the photograph, but as Berger tells us, I'm merely constructing an interpretation. The photo is "irrefutable evidence" of the moment it captures (of the rendering, which as Berger points out is afforded a different time allowance, but my words, or my narrative, are mere generalizations.
ReplyDeleteI like your questions in your final paragraph, especially when we consider both this photo and your Martha Graham photo together. Both are constructions, or "tableau" if I read Berger correctly on this subject. Either way, I liked the play on words of "the real thing" as slogan, art, and photograph, and what sorts of discussions the three open up here. Its' kind of like those Russian Dolls, right?
As for the last question, this ties back to our discussions of copyright from last semester, I think.
More than anything, Molly, I say, "yay" for bringing in Mary Poppins. Thanks for your insights.