Freewrite #2

For my second freewrite, I am still interested in focusing on the East Brunswick Heavenly Farms Turf Fields a few miles from my house. In order to background the turf fields, there is some explanation necessary for their purpose. Growing up, the most popular sport for either gender child to play was definitely soccer. The East Brunswick Soccer Club (EBSC) is a very large organization, and accounts for a lot of the friends I made as a child, as well as an opportunity to play a great sport. The main hub for the EBSC to play is was the Middlesex County Fairgrounds, technically a county park in East Brunswick, where there are five soccer fields. Attached, and used by the club also, was Diderickson Park, housing another five soccer fields. However, a few years ago, the township lost their lease on Diderickson Park, and could no longer use the soccer fields as part of the EBSC. So the club resorted to using different school fields across town, but needed a more permanent solution. This solution came in the form of the Turf Fields, two astro-turf soccer/football/lacrosse fields that are located next to the Fairgrounds. They are part of the Heavenly Farms complex, a plan by the township to reinvigorate this part of town, which is home to mostly farmland and forests. The Heavenly Farms Complex includes a public amphitheater, a dog park, and the turf fields, which are the only fields in town that have stadium lighting at night. So after the fields were designated as the prime practice site for soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, and other teams, word spread that they were open for use to the public. There is no lock on the field, no policeman posted, no signs posted that say they are not allowed to be used. There is no dawn-to-dusk rule, since the fields are lit at night. This makes them an optimal location for what became the hobby of myself and many of my friends last summer.

We use the facility to play games of ultimate frisbee 2-4 times a week. We began in other parks, but found that the lighting and turf were ideal conditions, even in the rain. Last summer, we had to compete with many organized league teams, such as the EBSC, for space. There is a bulletin board posted with when teams have official practices and have primary use of the field. This sign doesn’t really allow for outsider sign-up, so we could never reserve the fields for our frisbee. Though we couldn’t do so, last summer, the lights stayed on until 10 on weekdays and 11 on weekends, and all practices and games ended at 9. However, we don’t have this extra hour this year, because the township decided that they are turning the lights off at 9:30. So, we have resorted this year to playing in the morning and weighing our options for new location as school lets out and we’ll have to again compete with practicing league teams.

The turf fields are governed only by the occasional Department of Recreation vehicle that changes out the garbage cans in the mornings, and the sign from the Township that designates when leagues have use of the field. Otherwise, it is a free access park, and open to the general public. However, the fields, even with their tall lights, are not visible from either of the two streets that they are adjacent to. The sign on the access road doesn’t indicate “turf fields”, only “Heavenly Farms”. To an outsider, this means nothing, and there is no indication that there is a public park visually in any way. One has to know, either from a league, or from a friend, that these two fields exist, and this is a good way of keeping exorbitant crowds out, but thereby reducing their credibility as a “public park”. I am interested in pursuing who really owns the turf fields, what their purpose for existing is, and whether my friends’ frisbee play is encouraged or discouraged by the township. I will take into account the fields’ signage, location, stated purposes, and current uses, and its hours of operation. I hope, also, that my research will produce an answer to the question: “Does East Brunswick really need its Turf Fields?”

“secure” zones

Target stores

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanrules/3167906446/sizes/o/

This first image is one that surprises many people. It is the interior of a Target store, a pretty common site to most people. However, all those black circles in the ceiling? All cameras, making this a very, very jittery space, as defined by Flusty. Most people don’t notice these cameras. In my Target, which is a small one located in Milltown, NJ, there are 120 cameras. I used to work there, so I know a number of security specs and details. This picture is of the DVD section, one very potent for shoplifting, but it just goes to show how jittery a space can be regardless of whether the occupant is aware. But by entering the store, a private establishment, a person gives up their right to privacy and can be “watched”. Every aisle has a camera, and some aisles have multiple cameras. The segmenting of the store makes its recordability streamlined and very effective. However, the sheer number of cameras makes them impossible to all watch simultaneously. There is an entire department dedicated to “product retention” and they employ rent-a-cops and review tape if suspicious activity occurs.

However, the bottom line is that I know many employees and shoppers who have stolen from the store, without ever being followed up on. The cameras are  there and make their presence known. They are black on a white ceiling, with high contrast. They act as a deterrant more than an actual security device. 120 cameras in a small store not even doing their job well sounds silly, but it likely saves Target millions. They could even just place these black bubbles in the ceilings with no actual cameras there and they probably would still retain more products.

These cameras attempt to control people to prevent them from shoplifting, and it attempts to keep these people out of the store altogether. This tends to support Flusty’s arguments of public space turning into more stringently watched private space, as old stores may have not been monitored because they were essentially public space, these spaces are clearly private due to the cameras and flexing their “private muscles”.

Burger Joint NYC (Le Parker Meridien, 57th Street)

This is a quite different example that I myself find very interesting. Inside “Le Parker Meridien,” a very expensive hotel and restaurant located on 57th Street between 6th and 7th, holds this secret in its lobby. You start in what looks like an innocent hotel lobby (image 1), and there is sometimes a line coming out of the curtains. Only when you come far enough into the lobby to see inside the curtain, you see where the people are going (image 2). The sign (image 3) is the first indication that this place exists, and that it serves burgers. After waiting in the line, you see the prize (image 4), a dirty-looking, underground burger joint. There is no indication outside on the street or in the lobby until one sees this sign. Though the reason for its secrecy is not security, it still chooses to make itself a stealthy and slippery space.

The reason for this secrecy is really just to monitor who comes in. It does not attract the usual crowd of the Parker Meridien, and due to its location it does not attract the usual crowd of, say, a McDonalds down the street. Its menu is a cardboard sheet, and the walls are plastered with rock and movie posters. The restaurant is mostly to filter to “hipsters” and those who know the NYC restaurant scene. It deters tourists, and only allows insiders who hear about it through word of mouth (like myself), since they do not advertise at all. Even the name, “Burger Joint NYC” is completely client-produced. Their “name” is the neon sign of the burger. I think the materials and settings are perfect for this public space, and I think they seem to disprove Flusty’s arguments, because they are not for security, paranoia, or really anything. They merely exclude those who don’t “know the ropes” of New York, and do not attempt to exclude anyone who hears about them.

East Brunswick Turf Fields

These are the topics of my possible unit 1 paper, the turf fields in my town. Though they are totally open to the public, only surrounded by a 4 ft fence (to keep balls and players on the turf), they are still a slippery space. The fields, as one can see, are secluded from the two main roads they are near, Cranbury and Dunhams Corner Rd. They are not visible from either road, and there are no signs to indicate where they are from the entrance on Dunhams Corner Rd. Their only indication for outsiders are their bright lights that are lit during the evenings. Though the spaces are totally public, they exclude those who weren’t previously informed of their existence. They, in this way, exclude people who shouldn’t be there, basically anyone who shouldn’t be watching or playing on or maintaining the fields. While I understand that the fields shouldn’t be ruined by too much human traffic, I just don’t understand this aspect of their creation. There is plenty of space closer to the roads, and even though this could be a safety hazard, they are intended to be public spaces, and their current location in no way “invites” people to come unless they know about them.

This combines some aspects of Target, reducing crime (like possible sexual predator crimes), and aspects of the Burger Joint, exclusion of those without prior knowledge. So just due to their location, the turf fields, which seem like the most public of the spaces, is really the least public. This is not to say that they’re private, but merely that they’re less public. The road you drive on to get there, in the desolate old farm fields, reminds one of the privilege it is to know of this free location, as it drives you away from society. These implications of privilege in public space speaks clearly to Flusty’s essay, and begs the question: who are the field makers really trying to exclude from the space?

transgressive semiotics

http://www.yatzer.com/1004_jan_vormann..dispatchwork

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39219355@N07/3625754121/

This is a project I’ve come accross a few times on the internet, and upon reading the assignment I think it applies perfectly to the category of transgressive semiotics. I am a huge Lego fan and have been for as long as I can remember. As an architect, they’ve inspired me and I still see them as a great way to model projects and express in a unique medium.

This project was done by Jan Vormann, an artist from Berlin, and the project was done in Bocchignano, Italy. She filled in pieces of missing brick and stone with Lego bricks, some of the stones dating back to Roman times. This, to me, is a prime example of something being transgressive because not only does it break the boundaries of the accepted canvas (like the BLF and the Banksy), but also breaks the borders of the accepted medium (Lego, rather than paint). She created the pieces to contrast with the old, dust-covered gray and brown stones and intrudes upon them with bright, shiny plastic. Though the pieces are more of a temporary medium due to the nature of plastic materiality, they emphasize the difference between the “serious” foundation of the old town and the new, modern styles of today. She created the installments in part to introduce the “sleepy” town of Bocchignano to the present.

Though it is considered by some to be art (like any modern art), it is considered a disrespectful intrusion by others. After the work was displayed on the internet, some of her supporters in Berlin then responded by “dispatching” Legos of their own between broken bricks in her hometown of Berlin. (http://www.yatzer.com/feed_1696_dispatchwork_in_berlin) The exhibition (as can be seen in the comments section of the previous link) was applauded by some for being innovative and unique, but lauded by others as being childish and irreverant. Personally, I think that these are valuable pieces of art, and, though temporary, can remind the old world and its art of what the new world has to offer.

I think the most interesting part of transgressive semiotics is who is considered the one to judge it as being transgressive. Even in the case I introduced, there were multiple sets of viewers: those passing it on the street, those participating in Berlin, and those commenting on the images on the internet. Each has a different standard, and each has a different definition of transgression, further perpetuating the graffiti vs. art debate.

Advertisement Assignment

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39219355@N07/3606181320/

This is an advertisement from the back cover of Wired magazine, a magazine I subscribe to. Wired is a magazine primarily intended for men around 18-35 with an interest in electronics or even just “nerd” subculture, whether it’s business, economics, politics, computers or the internet. While it began as a very primarily nerdy magazine, it has diverged into being a “hipster” magazine, and includes, for example, an article on putting Mentos in ice cubes in cola to produce a reaction when the ice cubes melt.

I find it interesting that, primarily, cigarette ads are donning the back of such a magazine, for mostly young men. Smoking, at least in my generation, has essentially lost its appeal for being “cool” and is the primary focus for older generations is to get people to quit. But the advertisement itself portrays a young man listening to music while holding a cigarette and smiling or laughing. First of all, the image is odd to me because it looks like the cigarette could simply be photoshopped in, it is very subtle and the image itself doesn’t strongly rest on the cigarette. The man portrayed is successful, due to the leather chair, expensive headphones, and collared shirt, and he is clearly happy due to the smile on his face. The image has a high modality, and is meant to show that all people can enjoy cigarettes and it portrays class. This brings me to the text, and the primary headline says it all. “The only corners we cut are on the pack”. It portrays an image of success, again reinforcing the intent of the image. The block of text explains how the cigarettes themselves have a “smooth, even burn” and are made of “superior paper”. I find this interesting because Davidoff cigarettes are a brand I’ve never even heard of and yet they try to sell that they’ve been around the block and they know the cigarette industry. In fact, they are primarily a cigar company, which leads me to believe they don’t, or at least not as much is portrayed in the ad. I think it is an interesting graphic, as the image is very smooth, it has a simple black and white gradient, and even the red box on the left is very subtle and non-intrusive. The letters in the text are small and don’t have much contrast, and the logo is the primary area of contrast. This tries to juxtapose the advertisement from the surgeon general’s warning on the bottom, and try to make it seem like that is a magazine barcode or some other foreign item in the ad. I think it does a good job of separating itself from the warning, and portraying smoking as something “cool” to do.

This ad tries to portray smoking as something more acceptable than shown in a lot of society, especially in school and health outlets, and that it is definitely not a dead practice. It attempts to control behavior by reversing initial thoughts on smoking and showing that they are for the “in” crowd too. I think it is a problematic attempt because it tries to do this above a surgeon general’s warning, and smoking can lead to lung cancer and other health problems. Even the surgeon general’s warning is not strongly worded “Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health,” using confusing wording to almost avoid the fact that buying cigarettes isn’t.

I think it is interesting how drugs like cigarettes, alcohol, and even meth (as discussed in forum C) are portrayed differently by their advertiser’s and their counter-advertisers. Even when something is so clearly not good for you, it can be perceived as something that is great for you, whether you are a current user or not.

Blog Assignment #1 – Neighborhood Signs

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sheenachi/108311326/

This first image is one of a memorial in my town (East Brunswick, NJ) for the victims of the 9/11 tragedy, and especially those who were residents of my town. It was erected in the municipal complex in my town that houses the library, police department and senior center. It lies next to the Veterans Memorial (the flag statue in the background). It acts as an icon, a symbol and an index. First, it is an icon because the memorial is built in the shape of the Twin Towers, and has American flags on it to secure its function as an image of the towers. It is a symbol because it, in reality, is two vertical rectangular prisms, but is understood as the Twin Towers due to its association with the neighboring veterans statue, the words upon it, and the American flags. It is an index because it matters that it is in a town somewhat near New York City. If it were place in Austrailia, for example, it would mean something different, and especially because it bears the names of my town residents who died.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sheenachi/3377629728/

This image is from the inside of our local Circuit City, which was doomed to close as all other Circuit City’s were after the company went bankrupt this year. This image really has two signs in it, first, the “PC Accessories” Sign, and next the sale signs underneath it. The PC accessories sign acts as an icon and index. It is an icon for the picture of a mouse, a PC Accessory. It is an index because it is located above the PC Accessories. More important to me, however, are the sale signs. They are symbols and indexes. They are symbols because they contain words, which represent arbitrary aspects of the language. Their role as an index is paramount. They are in reference to the PC accessories section, but also to the sign above them, and also indexes because of the store they are in. They also bring up the fact that they are not only indexical of the sign’s or store’s location physically, but also the status of the store, and that is, bankruptcy. While symbolizing it, it does not indicate this fact explicitly, only through indexing.

http://www.ebyouthcouncil.com/images/EBHS.gif

I apologize for the quality and size of the image, but this is a particularly interesting sign in front of my high school. Its bushes are cut to read EBHS (East Brunswick High School). It faces the road, since our high school is on a hill and not visible from the road. It is accompanied by an electronic sign that projects surrounding school events. The bush sign is a symbol and an index. It is a symbol because it represents the four arbitrary letters of the high school, but could stand for something else in a different place. It is highly indexical, because it stands in front of its namesake, and it indicates the pride of the school it stands for and for the town. During our year of graduation, some students arranged sticks under the sign to read “EBHS ’08″, indicating further pride in our graduating year. It is a unique sign because of its medium, plants, and therefore it symbolizes a regard for the school’s attempt to be “green”.