1) Do the written descriptions of the physical subjects [Gaga's outfits, Bauhaus architecture, cigarette packs, etc.] actually "show" them to you? Or do you need visual images? If those descriptions fail, how do they fail?
If they 'work', how so?


In Gaga's article they didn't and I ended up using Google images for a visual guide because the outfits were so crazy.  The cigarette packs did show visuals of both Marlboro black and older versions of cigarette pack designs.  I think it worked because the Marlboro Black shows everything they talk about in the article and the older packs show you what they used to look like in that they are advertising that cigarettes kill on the pack.



2) What concepts do the authors point out as being "behind" these subjects? Do the authors effectively prove their points about these concepts? How so?

Rob Walker points out that it is common knowledge that cigarettes are harmful.  he talks about the branding of cigarettes and how the companies are required to have a warning on it saying "Nothing about this cigarette, packaging, or color should be interpreted to mean safer."

Aileen Kwun points out that Lady Gaga takes a lot of feedback from the press but she just ignores it and continues with her ambitious career.  Kwun also points out that when she first started becoming popular in early 2008 she didn't seem that different from her pop competitors with her blond hair, pale skin and sex appeal. She quickly distinguished herself with her crazy get-ups and stage performances.