In his essay, A Bit Bright, Delfino examines the science, history and development behind Las Vegas’s entertainment attractions through their advertising. He focuses on the methods that Casinos and other businesses have employed in order to draw more customers by tracking the development and change of these methods over time. Delfino suggests that the development of neon signage eventually led to the architectural developments of today’s megaresorts in order to prove how Las Vegas’s tradition of relentless competition leads to the desertion of history.
Delfino introduces the history of neon lights in Las Vegas by presenting us with the character of Vegas Vic, the 90 foot tall cowboy we all know and recognize from countless sources of media. He presents the signs historical importance when he mentions the first instance of a sign being an attraction all by itself, “There was even a billboard pointing out Vic to drivers and pedestrians, as if the sign itself was enough of a spectacle to warrant another sign, furthering the advertising success of the Frontier Club.”
Delfino moves on to present the next development in advertisement and neon signage in Las Vegas. He infers that the city’s “growing pedestrian scale” caused the integration of signs into the actual structure of buildings. He remains that the purpose behind a rival casinos employment of a neon façade was solely to stay competitive in luring more customers.
In focusing on the old downtown Vegas itself, Delfino explains how the development of the Fremont Street Experience was caused by their competitiveness. He mentions how all of the Casinos on the strip have to come together in order to keep up with the newer megaresorts by building a 90ft canopy over the four main blocks of Fremont Street that plays shows and music daily.
Delfino then moves to developments of neon spectacles and advertising on the Strip. He mentions the space that newer hotels and casinos had compared to casinos on Freemont Street was gigantic. They were able to erect a massive tower in front of the Flamingo for instance, something impossible on Freemont before. Neon pylons in front of their perspective casinos were also erected. He mentions how these pylons also changed in accordance to time and competition with other businesses and how it even ushered the “Golden Age of neon Strip signage.” The pylons served many purposes; they advertised their casino not only to cars but also to people on the streets.
Delfino argues that the next development in advertisement came when the casinos started building megaresorts appealing for their architectural marvels. The competitive nature of casinos caused them to start building incredible fantasy resorts in order to supplement their diminishing gaming profits. Due to the megaresort’s ability to stand alone without any spectacular advertisement other than itself the actual use of neon lights continues to dissolve.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Openings
The introduction I read and found engaging was Philip Alcabes’ opening in “The Bioterrorism Scare: A Historical Perspective.”
In it, Alacabes starts off by countering the opinions and warnings of the Fed. He lists the several disease scares that never happened and biological threats that never took place. Then he mentions that some in Washington want the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be transferred from the Department of Health and Human Services to Homeland Security. He uses the list of things that never happened to justify his questioning of the Fed’s proposals.
He takes all the talk of “biopreparedness” and really examines the logic behind it. He questions whether we should really take drastic action by turning our public health into a matter of civil defense or if we as Americans are just being fed a bunch of lies.
I liked the intro because he doesn’t present his personal opinion off the bat. He simply introduces the information of his topic and then questions what is right or wrong. It lets you easily transition into the next paragraph with questions to think about.
The introduction that I found non enjoyable was Hannah Ardent’s opening in “Deportations from Western Europe.
It starts off by mentioning the names of immediately unrecognizable people, places and events. It also has that long segment in parenthesis that confuses the reader in the beginning.
Also the information that is present is present all at once so it is hard to comprehend from the first reading and hard to put into historical context.
You don’t really know what she is talking about in the mass of detail from the opening paragraph until the end. However even at the end of the introduction, there’s no real thesis to the essay and you don’t know where it’s headed.
Half the time during the introduction I also had trouble keeping up with which country he was referring to. Who’s evacuating and who’s evacuating them?
She should have mentioned specifically something about the Jews having to migrate during and before WWII illegally through Europe instead of leaving it to the end. You’re lost most of the way through unless you know what she is talking about before hand.
In it, Alacabes starts off by countering the opinions and warnings of the Fed. He lists the several disease scares that never happened and biological threats that never took place. Then he mentions that some in Washington want the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be transferred from the Department of Health and Human Services to Homeland Security. He uses the list of things that never happened to justify his questioning of the Fed’s proposals.
He takes all the talk of “biopreparedness” and really examines the logic behind it. He questions whether we should really take drastic action by turning our public health into a matter of civil defense or if we as Americans are just being fed a bunch of lies.
I liked the intro because he doesn’t present his personal opinion off the bat. He simply introduces the information of his topic and then questions what is right or wrong. It lets you easily transition into the next paragraph with questions to think about.
The introduction that I found non enjoyable was Hannah Ardent’s opening in “Deportations from Western Europe.
It starts off by mentioning the names of immediately unrecognizable people, places and events. It also has that long segment in parenthesis that confuses the reader in the beginning.
Also the information that is present is present all at once so it is hard to comprehend from the first reading and hard to put into historical context.
You don’t really know what she is talking about in the mass of detail from the opening paragraph until the end. However even at the end of the introduction, there’s no real thesis to the essay and you don’t know where it’s headed.
Half the time during the introduction I also had trouble keeping up with which country he was referring to. Who’s evacuating and who’s evacuating them?
She should have mentioned specifically something about the Jews having to migrate during and before WWII illegally through Europe instead of leaving it to the end. You’re lost most of the way through unless you know what she is talking about before hand.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
ideas.
I first thought of writing on how the development of social networking sites such as myspace.com and facebook.com has influenced the way people; who are involved in all sorts of different relationships, not simply friendships, but relatives even and co-workers and future spouses too, can come together and communicate in a whole new way. I could also add how these sites have influenced pop culture by advertising the latest movies, bands, and even things such as viral videos, replacing other media networks or at least attempting too. I was also thinking of going into how it has even driven politicians to create their own personal MySpace profiles, in an attempt to keep up with the crowd of today, or something along the lines of that.
A challenge in this would be that I could have trouble finding articles or sources for this type of essay. I would have to speculate a lot on a lot of my claims.
For my second option I thought of the viral video. The viral video has also influenced the public in a myriad of ways; from giving anyone and everyone a shot at their 15 minutes of fame or humiliation even. They too can advertise a movie, or launch some webcam singer into stardom. Politically it has helped as well, allowing for immediate spread something like President Obama’s Yes We Can song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY).
The problem with this is that I doubt I’d be able to write 1800 words about viral videos. I would have an even bigger problem finding intelligent sources to draw from.
Lastly I could choose to write about the act of smoking marijuana, seeing as to how it is in hot debate currently and seems to come in and out of focus throughout time. It would be an unbiased look at the history of smoking marijuana. I wouldn’t write about why or why not it should be illegal but about its cultural affects on our society, in music, movies and general pop culture. I could go into how public perception of this drug has changed through different time periods and through different societies and maybe relate it to how it fits into California’s current bill that is in favor of the drug’s legalization and production.
I would have trouble with this though in that I’m not sure how I would make my point for it without sounding like a “pothead” per say. The reason for this is that although I don’t smoke marijuana, I along with a growing number of others have tried it, and I don’t see much wrong with it. Keeping in mind that I don’t smoke it habitually and am not am not trying to be an advocate for it, but am in favor of its legalization and I think it eventually will happen. I’m not sure of the sources I could find on this and am pretty positive I can develop a different or better paper on the history of smoking MJ. But I’m not sure how to set it up.
A challenge in this would be that I could have trouble finding articles or sources for this type of essay. I would have to speculate a lot on a lot of my claims.
For my second option I thought of the viral video. The viral video has also influenced the public in a myriad of ways; from giving anyone and everyone a shot at their 15 minutes of fame or humiliation even. They too can advertise a movie, or launch some webcam singer into stardom. Politically it has helped as well, allowing for immediate spread something like President Obama’s Yes We Can song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY).
The problem with this is that I doubt I’d be able to write 1800 words about viral videos. I would have an even bigger problem finding intelligent sources to draw from.
Lastly I could choose to write about the act of smoking marijuana, seeing as to how it is in hot debate currently and seems to come in and out of focus throughout time. It would be an unbiased look at the history of smoking marijuana. I wouldn’t write about why or why not it should be illegal but about its cultural affects on our society, in music, movies and general pop culture. I could go into how public perception of this drug has changed through different time periods and through different societies and maybe relate it to how it fits into California’s current bill that is in favor of the drug’s legalization and production.
I would have trouble with this though in that I’m not sure how I would make my point for it without sounding like a “pothead” per say. The reason for this is that although I don’t smoke marijuana, I along with a growing number of others have tried it, and I don’t see much wrong with it. Keeping in mind that I don’t smoke it habitually and am not am not trying to be an advocate for it, but am in favor of its legalization and I think it eventually will happen. I’m not sure of the sources I could find on this and am pretty positive I can develop a different or better paper on the history of smoking MJ. But I’m not sure how to set it up.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Java the Hut.
In his article, Java Man, Malcolm Gladstone infers that caffeine’s infusion in our society is positive. He supports his claim by providing examples of caffeine’s influence on society throughout the course of history. Gladstone uses examples of the drug’s effortless adaptability in our culture in order to prove its use has been positive.
Gladstone’s research is evident when he introduces the subject of drugs and their power over societal culture. Taking from a Colombia historian he references the diverse opinions that different groups of people have had on certain drugs showing how perspectives can change dramatically from society to society. He points out however (citing his research on Bealer and Weinberg) that caffeine bears no equal in its ability to adapt. He cites the different forms of people who indulge in caffeine from, “café intellectuals and artists, housewives to zen Monks.”
Gladstone cites eighteenth-century Europe when he considers coffee’s reputation as “the thinker’s drink.” He uses this research in order to show how smoking while drinking coffee led to the emergence of people conversing intelligently (as opposed to drunk) and for prolonged periods in Café bars, which in turn led to the Renaissance. Although I think this is plausible beucase his historical citations and inferences are credible, the establishment of this credibility is ineffective. It doesn’t convince me that people started thinking clearer because of coffee itself, but again, it is plausible.
In order to support the notion that coffee is good for you in a variety of ways, Gladstone refers to the Erdos, the Mathematician who without coffee was not able to perform up to par. With it, Erdos was a machine for turning coffee into theorems. This piece of information was also credible, but ineffective in convincing me that coffee was the sole driving force behind Erdos’s work, as if one depended on coffee as much one depends on food or water or sleep even.
His assumption that drinking coffee led to the Industrial revolution is preposterous, but is credible in the way he uses Bealer and Weinbergs information to back it. Yes, I can see how people would be influenced by coffee, but the industrial revolution was caused by a number of reasons, and coffee isn’t one of the top ones.
I find it hard to disagree with his closing statements on caffeine being the best and most useful drug, but as possible as the scenarios he uses may be, they are a bit exaggerated.
Gladstone’s research is evident when he introduces the subject of drugs and their power over societal culture. Taking from a Colombia historian he references the diverse opinions that different groups of people have had on certain drugs showing how perspectives can change dramatically from society to society. He points out however (citing his research on Bealer and Weinberg) that caffeine bears no equal in its ability to adapt. He cites the different forms of people who indulge in caffeine from, “café intellectuals and artists, housewives to zen Monks.”
Gladstone cites eighteenth-century Europe when he considers coffee’s reputation as “the thinker’s drink.” He uses this research in order to show how smoking while drinking coffee led to the emergence of people conversing intelligently (as opposed to drunk) and for prolonged periods in Café bars, which in turn led to the Renaissance. Although I think this is plausible beucase his historical citations and inferences are credible, the establishment of this credibility is ineffective. It doesn’t convince me that people started thinking clearer because of coffee itself, but again, it is plausible.
In order to support the notion that coffee is good for you in a variety of ways, Gladstone refers to the Erdos, the Mathematician who without coffee was not able to perform up to par. With it, Erdos was a machine for turning coffee into theorems. This piece of information was also credible, but ineffective in convincing me that coffee was the sole driving force behind Erdos’s work, as if one depended on coffee as much one depends on food or water or sleep even.
His assumption that drinking coffee led to the Industrial revolution is preposterous, but is credible in the way he uses Bealer and Weinbergs information to back it. Yes, I can see how people would be influenced by coffee, but the industrial revolution was caused by a number of reasons, and coffee isn’t one of the top ones.
I find it hard to disagree with his closing statements on caffeine being the best and most useful drug, but as possible as the scenarios he uses may be, they are a bit exaggerated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)