Media’s Influence Essay Example for Free

Medias Influence EssayFrom Congress to Clowns Medias Influence on Bow affiliation Transformation The put in nexus could easily be dubbed the black sheep of the Cravat family. Its origins are n wizard glamorous and it is rarely embraced, typically turned against and most often forgotten. It is noniced in only its fleeting moments of sheik or dreadfully collide withensive shock. Its history originating in utility and birthed from a distinguished sect was turned against with the advent of optic media. The stoop nexus was first seen in the 17th Century when Croatian mercenaries went to support power Louis in France (Pohl). To keep their shirts closed and to protect themselves from the elements they tied a loosely fit tie round their necks (Pohl). There is debate over whether the intention was strictly utilitarian as long, lace neckwear was already a fake in France there was likely some ferment. King Louis quickly adopted the tie for fashion. He named it La Cravat and m ade it the required attire for upper coterie formal gatherings (Pohl). It continued its European edit and was brought along with colonization to America. The earliest bow ties were sportsmanlike and were worn for fashion and social flesh distinction.It remained in use during the 18th and 19th century, but was mainly isolated to politicians, lawyers and scholars as very formal and nonrecreational attire. Abraham Lincoln and many of our early presidents were often photographed wearing the bow tie reinforcing its representation of being a distinguished accessory. The first major shift in veritable bow tie use coincided with the changes in political ideology. A young America, wanting to distance itself from European classism removed the bow tie from accepted fashion practice.Outside of the very formal black tie affair it was rarely seen. The general tactual sensation of the bow tie changed as well, as it began to carry with it an air of pretense or snobbery. Warren St. John, a wr iter for the New York Times, describes this shift in thinking, To its devotees the bow tie suggests iconoclasm of an Old World sort, a frowsty adherence to a contrarian point of view. The bow tie hints at intellectualism, real or feigned, and sometimes suggests adept acumen, perhaps because it is so hard to tie.Bow ties are worn by magicians, country doctors, lawyers and professors and by multitude hoping to look like the above. But perhaps most of all, wearing a bow tie is a way of broadcasting an aggressive lack of concern for what other people think (St. John). This idea changed in an important way in the 20th century. After decades of a clear break from European influence the bow tie made a take place back, but in an interesting way. It was windlessness fashionably outcast outside of formalwear, but it became an icon for exclusiveism.A list of bow tie devotees reads like a Whos Who of rugged individualists (St. John). Interestingly this new trend coincides with the advent and surge in visual media, via film, news real, time and eventually television. Mens clothier Jack Freedman told the New York Times that wearing a bow tie is a statement maker that identifies a person as an individual because its not generally in fashion (St. John). The bow tie would never be generally in fashion even with visual access, but media helped to mold new thinking about it as a symbol and defined opinions of those who wore it.Its workaday use was adopted by outspoken and prominent politicians, comedians, broadcasters, and many animated figures. The influence from Hollywood and T. V. media would compel an impression that would stick. In T. V. and film comedians and animated characters personas who wore bow ties were portrayed as goofy, awkward, quirky or nerdy creating a stereotype that modern bow tie wearers green goddesst quite shake. Characters much(prenominal) as Jerry Lewis loco Professor and Paul Reubens Pee Wee Herman eat helped perpetuate it.It is possible t hat Hollywood as an asylum and protector of class may book created these characterizations in rebellion to the adoption of the bow tie by mainstream individuals. Simmel writes, the elite initiates a fashion and when the mass imitates it in an effort to eliminate the distinction of class, the elite abandon it for a different mode. Acting on the elites behalf, visual media created and exposed these anticish views to turn the style off, to make it un- faddish, so it could resume class distinction (541).Like the black sheep that it is, despite its sense of fury the bow tie also leaves the impression of being quite swearworthy. galore(postnominal) passing respected leaders, lawyers, politicians and broadcasters have donned them and some have even been branded by this signature piece. Winston Churchill was known for his signature blue and white polka-dot tie. Charles Osgood for his trademark tie worn during broadcasts. That sense of trust could stem from the idea that these men are jovial enough to go against fashion or because they dont care what people think we trust them to be more candid and honest.Advertisers picked up on this trend and companies such as Chevrolet and Budweiser have include the bow tie in their corporate logos. They also reinforced this association of trustworthiness and honesty with their take to the woods slogans. In 1996 Chevrolet wanted its blue bow tie to be among Americas top icons again, so it created a series of 15 second spots featuring just the bow tie in unexpected places with the printed tag Genuine Chevrolet and the narration the cars Americans trust (Halliday).Budweiser also made this association with their ad grounds featuring just their red bow tie logo and the words Budweiser, True. Though the bow tie has made a dramatic shift in the 20th century from a symbol of class distinction and distinguished conformity to a symbol of individualism and supposed trust, the bow tie has not waivered as the staple accessory of forma l attire. There have been some recent adaptations, again brought on by Hollywood celebrities such as the black button cover or black bolo tie tie, but when alternates are chosen they are typically mocked by mainstream media.Black tie affair still means black bow tie by all accounts. The sophistication and style has been reinforced by celebrities in photos or films of formal dances, dinners and parties. Representing all the glamour of classic Hollywood and associated with the debonair Humphrey Bogart and Frank Sinatra. It has such a long standing tradition and symbol of what it means to be a sophisticated and swish gentleman that even Playboy picked it up and incorporated it into their bunny logo .In fact, Playboys use of the bow tie has in many ways taken the symbol full circumference the fantasy and money associated with having women and the finer things in life really brings us right back to the ideas of class distinction and giving men something to aspire too. The bow tie has such an interesting history because essentially we arent sure what to think of it. Outside of its use as formal wear it doesnt have a category or clear intention. Standing so far left of fashion it is one of those rare instances where those who chose to wear it really do demonstrate individuality and not out of a wish for protest or desperation to be noticed.Finkelstein wrote, The basic irony of fashion is that it cannot succeed in score the individual as truly different. While fashions may be touted as a means to be distinguished, the pursuit of fashion is more effectively a means of being socially homogenized. The historic achiever of being fashionable has been to provide a sense of individualism within a shared code, since individuals can look acceptably distinctive only within a restricted aesthetic. When they purchase fashionable goods that impart distinguish them, they do so only from a range of goods already understood to be valuable.Having this accord of fashion it seem s to follow that one purchasing or wearing something un-fashionable truly is expressing their individuality. In the case of the bow tie it seems its wearers have less in common and that commonality derived by the observer has more to do with visual medias attempt to categorize the wearer as something. Interestingly though, those known for donning the bow tie come from such a broad society base that stereotypes of general folly created by media characters do not really apply. However it may be that is exactly the point.When you cant be categorized you will certainly stand out and in that case the bow tie, outside of the formal, acts merely as a signature piece with no real intention other than being noticed. To be fashionable involves having detail knowledge about the value of goods. It is not sufficient to desire goods because of their utility (Finkelstein). Clearly using the bow tie for the sake of the utility of being noticed makes the item quite un-fashionable, but maybe it is t he individual outside of the fashion world who truly understands the value of goods.The bow tie is the black sheep of the Cravat family, the outsider of the fashion world and that is its value. Visual media has changed its initial perceptions of being an item of social class distinction to that of a clown and yet despite its created perceptions those who choose to wear the bow tie outside of film and T. V. are highly regarded and trusted. Advertisers have picked up on this strange dichotomy and have even reinforced its credibility, but not to the approval of the fashion world.It is curious to think that the bow tie will ever become fashionable outside of its formal roots mainly because it has become something far more valuable than fashion. Works Cited Finkelstein, Joanne. alacrity Theory. Australian Humanities Review. 07 ring 2009. http//www. australianhumanitiesreview. org/archive/Issue-March-1997/. Pohl, H. The History of the Bow Tie. 05 November 2008. lula general articles. 07 March 2009. http//www. iula. org/the-history-of-the-bow-tie-16695/. Halliday, Jean.Chevrolet ads seek to bolster image of bow tie. 08 April 1996. Automotive News. Crain Communications. 07 March 2009. http//www. highbeam. com/doc/1G1-18451431. html. Simmel, Georg. Fashion. may 1957. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 6, 541-558. 07 March 2009. http//www. jstor. org/stable/2773129. St John, Warren. A Red Flag That Comes in Many Colors. 26 June 2005. The New York Times. 07 March 2009. http//www. nytimes. com/2005/06/26/fashion/sundaystyles/26BOWTIE. html.