t to distinguish the economy from popular culture. The realm of consumption is increasingly influenced by popular culture. For example, we watch more films because we have a VCR, then they reference and advertise products that we go and buy. Surface and style have become more important and evoke a kind of designer ideology. The obsession with being super-model thin, fad-diets, use of sexuality, football, designer clothing, and many more simulations that work as a network in exchange order with each other to create reality narrative for post-modern consumer. The argument is we increasingly consume images and signs for their own sake rather than for their usefulness or for the deeper values they may symbolise. The very values that ‘modernists’ used to talk about.
In the production-era machines had to be built and updated, basic materials like iron and steel made, infrastructures such as roads, rail, communication had to be laid down, the work force had to be taught the work ethic: Taylorisation and Fordism. Once this was established, the need for consumption emerges. And people need to acquire a consumer ethic. The need to consume becomes equal to the need to produce. Increased affluence combined with consumer credit, advertising, marketing and design. Culture celebrates consumerism and style, therefore the media becomes more important. New occupations or changed role of older ones involved in need to make people consume: advertisers, marketing, design, journalism, television, finance, etc.
In his essays, Stuart Hall has conceptualized the production and consumption of the television message as a complex social construction of meaning within the semiotic framework. His theory of encoding/decoding is very important in the discourse of consumption of advertising in TV. The polysemic images have been encoded in a particular way and the process of decoding is not symmetrical. Looking back at the work of Barthes we understand that advertising texts are polysemic and at the connotative level of signification signs possess fluidity which enables them to be articulated in multiple ways (Barthes, 1973, pg 122). Eco argues that the viewers determination to decode the message in aberrant ways are to be found in the readers general framework of cultural references such as his ideological, ethical religious standpoint, value systems, etc, (Eco, 1998, 141).
Following the same path of consumption and ideology, Baudrillard follows Althuesser in arguing that the subject is constituted through social classifications and ideological processes. Ideology converts humans into subjects. Ideology lets us mistakenly recognize ourselves as autonomous self-determining agents, whereas in fact we are subjects formed through a social physic processes. Ideology therefore is not the mirrored inversion of the real but our imaginary or symbolic to our shared conditions of existence. Watching the latest Levi jeans advertisement we are addressed as individual consumers with our own unique passion and desires. The ideological effect of the ad lies in its ability to interpellate us in this way. Althusser complicates Marx beautifully by not accepting the concept of ideology as false consciousness. It is material practice produced by ideological state apparatuses. It makes us think are sovereign consumers rather than a member of social class. (Stevenson, 2002,150)
In the age of postmodernism where the product is a sign instead of a commodity, as Baudrillard argues, the way in which adverts are consumed by television viewers depend on the very same framework Eco talks about. Jean Baudrillard’s essay “The Ecstasy of Communication” evokes TV and its technologies as a metaphor for the regime of simulation in the contemporary western culture.
A TV screen cannot be thought simply as an object to be looked at, with all the old forms of psychic projection and investment; instead, the screen intersects responsively with our desires and representation and becomes an embodied from of our psychic worlds. What happens on the screen is neither on the screen nor in us, but in 